KING III & GRI +13 2012 Review of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa as per the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines

KING

III & G

RI +13

With 13 years’ of living in South Africa, it might seem inappropriate to state that Michael H. Rea is “a Canadian”, but as Joburg winters continue to prove, the thick and insulating blood of the Canadian never diminishes, regardless of how much one’s eternal love of South Africa proves the adage that “Africa gets into your blood”. As the Managing Partner at Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (‘IRAS’, formerly SustainabilityServices.co.za), Michael has developed a 15-year track record in sustainability-related services, of which the past 13 include sustainability reporting and assurance in more than 25 countries. Having worked for both PwC (SA and Canada) and KPMG (SA), and having partnered with EY and Deloitte on projects, Michael has developed a boutique/niche assurance consultancy over the past six years that not only supports his own sustainability, but helps inform the space around reporting and assurance. With a unique perspective on ‘Big 4’ versus ‘boutique’ approaches to sustainability advisory, authorship and assurance services, Michael respects the role the ‘Big 4’ accountancy firms play in sustainability-related services, yet offers a suite of custom services that provide competitively value-adding alternatives that are uniquely positioned to offer greater flexibility when meeting client expectations.

With degrees in Biology, Psychology and an MBA in Corporate Social Responsibility, Michael is quick to point out that while he is passionate about sustainability reporting – as a mechanism for improved risk management, transparency and accountability – his work is merely a means to a more important end. His role at IRAS is one of business developer, principal consultant and assurer,

and educator: sharing his experience with the next generation of sustainability consultants and clients. Michael offers SA’s only Certified Sustainability Assurance Practitioner (CSAP) course – twice annually – to budding practitioners, as well as to companies seeking to ensure that their reporting is ‘assurance ready’. Moreover, Michael’s fee-generating activities are the means to support his real passions: supporting the Soweto Marimba Youth League (SMYLe) Trust, of which Michael is the Founding Trustee and Programme Director, as well as other local charities.

IRAS is a small, specialised, ‘boutique’ consultancy that thrives on its relationships with a network of ‘Other Sustainability Reporting Practitioners’ (or ‘other SRPs’) to deliver value-adding advisory, sustainability data systems development, report authorship, and assurance services to clients in a wide array of industries. From pro bono clients in the NGO sector (Little Eden, Cotlands and the Orlando Children’s Home), to SMMEs in the garment manufacturing industry (Impahla Clothing, a Cape Town based PUMA supplier, and Vimal Clothing, a Durban based supplier to the likes of Adidas and Nike), to large listed corporations (African Bank, Altron, ARM, Illovo Sugar, Merafe Resources, Metair Holdings, PSV Holdings, Sun International, Tongaat Hulett, Wilderness Safaris and Xstrata South Africa), IRAS is not only ‘the #1 assurance provider in South Africa’, but is well poised to provide excellent services to a range of highly respected clients.

For more information about our services, please go to www.iras.co.za.

An exercise of this nature could not be possible without the assistance of a number of key role players. In alphabetical order, we would like to thank the following people:

Computershare, Sarie Oosthuizen and Amanda Nkosi The collection of Annual and Sustainability Reports would have been a near-impossible job without the exceptional assistance of Sarie, and her colleague Nomsa at Link.

JSE Limited, Corli le Roux and Makhiba Mollo Our initial point of research departure began with receipt of a comprehensive database of JSE-listed companies, without which the scope of research may not have been as well-defined.

Link Market Services, Nomsa Phosa As mentioned above, gathering the reports was primarily facilitated by Nomsa, Sarie and Amanda, and our sincerest “Thanks” continue to go out to them for their unwavering support.

Studio 5 is not only a fellow-skills partner in the development of the SMYLe and Little Eden GRI-based NGO Annual Reports, but also the brand intelligence behind both SMYLe and IRAS, and thus it was a pleasure to share the development of this report with their highly skilled and motivated team. Their ingenious ability to convert words into stories, coupled with phenomenal attention to detail, has helped develop what is likely to be regarded as the best yet report in our annual series of research documents.

The IRAS Team: Julia Wakeling, Lauren Stirling, Matt Cameron, Tahereh Kharestani and Thembi Ndlovu Our research team comprised of one South African – Lauren – who joined IRAS in January 2011 after returning from teaching high school Sciences in the UK for 10 years, two Zimbabweans – Julia and Thembi – who joined IRAS earlier this year, an Iranian – Tahereh – who is currently completing her Masters in Sustainability and Responsibility at Ashridge Business School in the UK and another Canadian – Matt – who is just entering the work world after completing an undergraduate degree in finance. To assume that this project isn’t an insane endeavour would be tantamount to ignoring the number of times the team wanted to lynch their “leader” (mostly because of unclear instructions). Nonetheless, the research team successfully waded through more than 400 annual and/or sustainability reports to complete the 4th annual review of GRI-based reporting in South Africa, and their excellent attention to detail has been sincerely appreciated.

We would also like to thank the first 24 ‘Other SRPs’ (sustainability reporting practitioners) listed in Appendix IV: our colleagues, peers and competitors who have helped pay for this research report (and the launch event) by purchasing ad space.

| Acknowledgements

Thembi Ndlovu

| About the Author

With the exception of scanned images from publicly available annual and/or sustainability reports, or other research documents, all of the photos used in this report are from the private collection of Michael H. Rea, and have been used to help contextualise the reporting paradigm in South Africa. The majority of the photos are from the Orlando Children’s Home (Soweto), which was selected as this year’s beneficiary of our ‘Making Reporting Matter’ initiative.Over the past three years, IRAS has used the launch of our research reports as a mechanism for inviting our reporting colleagues, peers, competitors and clients to participate in a mechanism for ‘giving back’ to those less fortunate. In 2010, we collected clothing for HIV-affected families in the Hlabisa area of northern KZN, while in 2011 we collected blankets for people living in the Zandspruit Informal Settlement, situated just north of Johannesburg. In preparation for this year’s report launch, the IRAS team travelled to the Orlando Children’s Home to identify a need that we believed our network of stakeholders could help us meet. Without much debate, we identified a desperate need to fix toilets in the home as an urgent priority. Thus, we decided to host a unique volunteerism project we like to call “Extreme Makeover: Bathrooms Edition”, or “Pimp My Crapper!” Thus, the photos contained within this report are used to remind you, the reader, of the way in which this research project makes a difference.

Within IRAS, we believe that “to whom much is given, much is expected”, and we trust that our network of ‘reporting friends’ equally share in this belief.

As South African businesses, it’s important for all of us to understand the socioeconomic, political and environmental conundrum our fellow citizens frequently find themselves in. With the highest income disparity in the world – measured by the Gini coefficient – as well as intolerable levels of unemployment and/or under-employment, South Africa’s frightening level of disparity is frequently blamed for much of the crime, murder and corruption that could potentially undo the near-flawless transformation to democracy that the world has respected South Africa for.

While those of us deemed ‘the haves’ enjoy the privileges of relative wealth and opportunity, insulated by the confines of suburbia, the masses around us struggle to exist in a world that leads many to believe that the apartheid of old is not dead, but rather reincarnated. It’s no longer a racial divide that polarises society, but a socioeconomic chasm that appears to have evolved out of equal parts greed, selfishness, fear and uncertainty. For those blessed with access to a meaningful education, as well as the social structures required to develop ambition, determination and self-belief, escaping poverty is almost a forgone conclusion, while millions of others are virtually trapped in an endless cycle of inopportunity. At the same time, those with the means to afford suburbia unwittingly exacerbate the poverty of the masses through behaviour-based ecological destruction.

Be the CHANGEyou want to see.Mahatma Ghandi

| Our Reporting Theme | Content

IFC | About the Author

IFC | Acknowledgements

01 | Our Reporting Theme

03 | Research Scope, Objectives and Approach

09 | King III and the GRI Guidelines: The Why and How of Reporting

13 | GRI Reporters in South Africa: Our Research Findings

25 | Independent Third Party Assurance

31 | 10 Tips to Achieve Excellence in Integrated Sustainability Reporting

37 | Our Personal Favourites

43 | Why Report According to GRI?

49 | The JSE’s Role in Encouraging Effective Reporting

53 | Benefits of GRI-based Reporting in the NGO Sector: A Call to Action!

57 | Getting the Data Right

61 | The Push Towards More Effective Carbon Disclosure

67 | Appendices

IBC | Moving Forward

1

licences society – rather than government – informally issue to companies, and executives are beginning to accept that the income and/or value-added statements taught in school are no longer relevant in the context of a world seeking socioeconomic fairness.

As this research report demonstrates, South Africa has become somewhat of a laboratory in which the global corporate world has set about to test the value inherent in effective reporting. With fewer than 400 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and 128 GRI-based reporting entities (including 121 listed companies, 3 NGOs, one SMME, two parastatals and one municipal water board), the uptake of the GRI Guidelines is higher here than in any other country. Driven partly by the size of the high social and environmental impact resource extractive industries (e.g., metals and mining), the path of South Africa’s post-apartheid transformation agenda has exacerbated the need to collect, collate and report meaningful answers to critical questions such as “How responsibly do you generate the wealth you distribute to the shareholders who remain the minority (i.e., the wealthy few… regardless of race)?”

South African companies’ reports have significantly improved: at least in our observation over the four-year history of this annual research process. They have incorporated a number of compliance-related reporting expectations such as industry charters (e.g., the Mining Charter), the Workplace Skills Development Act, the Employment Equity Act, the JSE’s Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index, the dti Codes of Good Practice and a variety of other company and/or industry-specific reporting requirements. They have not only become a message to shareholders and potential investors, but – much more importantly – an internal management tool tantamount to the tail that wags the dog. They have become tools used to help market goods and services to government, and communication tools used to attract scarce skills from within highly mobile professional career categories (e.g., engineers and CAs). Thus, it is my hope that this document will serve as a tool for the 65% of ‘other South African companies’ (235) still needing to identify how applying the GRI Guidelines can help manage social, environmental and governance risks.

“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!”While our research does not attempt to identify whether one or more companies has reached some form of ethical utopia, it is the collective hope among the IRAS team – including our highly committed interns – that the examples of reporting leadership identified in this document will help those yet to embark on a similar journey towards transparency and accountability. As a reader, we implore you to avoid trying to find ‘the perfect example’ and rather focus on learning from those who have at least one eye on the ball!

Chronic Obstructive Airways Diseases, ‘COADs’ such as silicosis and pneumoconiosis are to Soweto what oxygen-emitting tree-lined streets are to those living in the north. Acid mine drainage from the long-closed gold mines pollute water ways, and man-made non-biodegradable waste pollutes what open spaces might exist, while a lack of public services – more readily available in wealthier parts of the city – exponentially exacerbate the plight of the masses.

Foreign shop owners are attacked in fits of xenophobic rage, by communities that errantly assume that the success of one must occur at the expense of others. Petty criminals are lynched and, in many cases, publicly executed by otherwise law-abiding citizens who have exceeded their ability to tolerate lawlessness, yet in doing so becoming more the problem than the solution. The homes of councillors in parts of Soweto are attacked, and in some cases completely destroyed, by angry mobs seemingly protected from prosecution merely because of government’s inability to cap discontent, coupled with what appears to be a lack of political will to either fix the underlying problems, or punish those who turn protests into criminal acts.

What trees do still exist are harvested – unsustainably – to provide a fuel source even in peri-urban areas. Water sources are polluted by poorly maintained bulk sewage infrastructure, while over-crowding, poor sanitation and a lack of waste management systems ensure that previously eradicated diseases such as cholera become annual crises.

Sadly, the average life expectancy of a black male is roughly 48 years, while that of a white male is nearer to 72, and one need only spend time in what could be deemed a “black community” to understand why black males are so chronologically disadvantaged. Smoking, alcohol and a wide array of ‘cheap drugs’ are effective coping mechanisms that make “life” more bearable, while ultimately stripping the consumer of both quantity and quality of life.

By working with people such as Johnny Hlaba, an immensely talented musician who supports a family of five in Soweto on less than R3 000 per month, and Albertina Khumalo, a hard working grandmother of AIDS-orphaned grandchildren, who supports a family of 23 also on less than R3 000 per month. In the Hlabisa area of northern KZN, the need for meaningful corporate social responsibility, and effective sustainability reporting has become obvious to me. By no means have I become a communist, but it’s safe to assert that I’ve become somewhat of a free-market socialist.

While the business of business will always be business – as Friedman effectively postulated – the world around us seems to be becoming abundantly aware of the need to earn equitably, spend responsibly, and consume sustainably. We are being alerted to the way in which social media is strengthening community activism, even in poorer communities that are often under-estimated with respect to their level of sophistication. Legal licences to operate are beginning to take a back seat to the social

As a hobby pilot, the full might of apartheid became much clearer the first time I flew from Grand Central Airport, just north of Johannesburg (in Midrand), south over Alexandra, then Sandton and the “northern suburbs”, over the Johannesburg CBD, and then southwest to Soweto (the “south west township”). At about 5 000 feet, one can clearly see how little the divide is between the wealth of Sandton and the poverty of Alex, and can easily identify just how comprehensively the world’s largest man-made urban forest shields the ‘rich few’ from the devastatingly ‘poor many’. Moreover, the extent to which the governments of the past punished non-whites, for no fault of their own, becomes abundantly obvious when winds can be observed sweeping arsenic and cyanide-laden dust from the tops of mine dumps, straight into the near tree-less communities that make up Soweto.

| Our Reporting Theme continued

2

| Research Scope, Objectives and Approach

The rationale behind using non-sustainability experts is predicated on the assumption that an experienced sustainability advisor, author or assurance provider would most probably bring a hyper-critical set of expectations to the process. By using inexperienced reviewers, the test of GRI-compliance could assess whether companies make their reports simple enough for a wide array of stakeholders to use effectively.

For this year’s review, our research team consisted of one existing team member (Lauren), one new recruit to the IRAS team (Julia), and two fixed-term international interns: Matt (Canada), and Tahereh (Iran). The team was supported by Thembi, our Research & Admin Assistant, who was given the unenviable task of collecting all of the reports we reviewed.

Over the course of a five-month period, the team reviewed the most recently published hard copy and/or electronic annual and/or sustainability reports for the more than 420 companies recorded on a list of companies supplied by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), as well as reports from non-listed entities which have been known to produce a sustainability report (i.e., ‘known reporters’).

Unfortunately, neither of these databases serves the interests of IRAS – or our peers within the South African reporting and assurance market – without our efforts to first assist them. Hence, our research.

Within a small company such as IRAS, we believe that we have the potential to service 20 clients – with our current team complement – at a level to which we are not compromising our value proposition. However, we also believe that because we research opportunities for improvement within companies – to define potential work for us – we may as well share our findings with every single company we review, as a means of helping everyone understand where we – as a collective, and as individual reporters – stand relative to reasonable expectations for sustainability reporting.

In short, King III – the King Code of Corporate Governance (version 3, or “King III”) – has established a heads up for companies attempting to identify the future of their business in the context of an ever-changing social, economic and environmental landscape. Among many other governance recommendations, King III encourages companies to produce meaningful integrated annual reports using the guidance set out by the GRI (i.e., the GRI G3 Guidelines). In doing so, King III has effectively set new benchmarks for a level of transparency that has long eluded conscious consumers and investors. Although the goal is courageous, there remains an inadequate amount of information available to stakeholders wishing to understand how to benchmark corporate performance on ‘non-financial matters’ and/or companies that wish to understand where they continue to fall short of the mark. This is why the team at IRAS has yet again embarked on our annual quest to establish a useful database of GRI-based sustainability reports.

As mentioned above, the inherent flaw in the GRI’s database is the fact that the GRI does not actually search for reports, but rather waits for companies to send their reports to the GRI’s database team. While it might be reasonable to assume that anyone using the GRI Guidelines would want to let the GRI know, and thus be included in the GRI’s database, this is not the case. At last check (31 May 2011), the GRI’s database only recorded 88 GRI-based reports in South Africa for the 2011 period, which is 40 fewer than our research has found. Hence, our decision to volunteer to become the GRI’s “data partner” for South Africa.

To identify our list of 128 GRI-based South African reports, IRAS assembled a team with extensive research and analysis skills, but little to no experience in sustainability reporting matters.

Over the past four years, our incredibly small business has invested heavily in researching the effectiveness of corporate sustainability reporting in South Africa. We have done so primarily to identify scope for our services, but by no means did we end there. Granted, it would have been far easier for us to access global databases of sustainability reports to figure out who might be interested in our services, but this presupposes that global databases are complete and/or accurate.

To the best of our knowledge, there are two places interested parties can go to figure out which companies produce sustainability (or integrated annual, inclusive of sustainability) reports. These are:

u Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)The GRI maintains a global database of reports that at least mention the GRI’s guidelines. (www.globalreporting.org)

Unfortunately, the GRI’s database has been historically flawed, in that it only contained reports that had been sent – by reporting entities – to the GRI for uploading into their ‘known reports database’. Typically, this has meant that their database fell short by roughly 50%, given that our annual research has identified twice as many GRI-compliant reports than were found in their database.

To help rectify this problem, IRAS has volunteered to become the GRI’s local “GRI Data Partner”, sending all of our research findings – on behalf of every SA reporting entity – to the GRI for uploading onto their database.

u CorporateRegister.comCorporateRegister.com (CR) maintains a well-populated global database of all annual, integrated annual and sustainability reports (in all forms). (www.corporateregister.com)

Unfortunately, CR is apparently at loggerheads with the GRI over their respective databases, and has taken the brutally self-minded decision to deny anyone who helps the GRI access to the CR website (it’s actually written into the terms of agreement for anyone using their database). Because IRAS shares all of its research findings with everyone – including the GRI – we can no longer access their database.

Thus, you – as a reader of this research report – can make use of CR’s very useful online database. We – at IRAS – can’t!

So much for playing nicely in the same sandbox!

Research Scope, Objectives and Approach

To be considered a “South African Report”, the company must not only be listed on the JSE, but must have as its primary residence, an office in South Africa. In many cases, where it wasn’t obvious, our ‘Proudly SA’ test was conducted by searching for where the auditors reside. Although a company might appear to be South African, or assert that it’s South African, it might have been deemed ‘un-South African’ on the basis of not being administratively based in South Africa.

In order for a report to be deemed “GRI-Compliant”, the report had to meet the following requirements:

• Clearly state that the report was “compiled in accordance with the GRI Guidelines” (or something to that effect).

• Either declare a GRI Application Level (C/C+, B/B+ or A/A+, where the ‘+’ indicates that the report had been assured by a third party), or clearly indicate that an Application Level has not been declared. Exceptions are made if/when a company has not declared a level, but has included a GRI Content Index, thus being “GRI Compliant” by default.

NOTE

4

Some reports were immediately disqualified due to a comprehensive lack of information, leaving a total population sample of 363 reports, of which the vast majority were produced for the 2011 financial year, while some were for the 2012 financial period.

To establish a GRI-compliance score, each report was compared against all 127 GRI G3 Guideline indicators (see Appendix IV for a full list of the indicators). Testing was conducted to determine whether or not the reports provided responses to each of the G3 reporting requirements:

• 42 ‘Strategy & Profile’ indicators – those that essentially provide an overview of the entity, its sustainability paradigm, and the systems and processes for stakeholder engagement and reporting;

• six ‘Disclosures on Management Approach’ for Economic, Environmental, Labour, Human Rights, Social and Product Responsibility – those that define how the entity manages its performance in each of these areas;

• 49 ‘Core Performance Indicators’, of which seven are Economic, 17 Environmental, nine Labour, seven Human Rights, six Society and four Product Responsibility – those that define how the entity manages its performance for common areas; and

• 30 ‘Additional Performance Indicators’, of which two are Economic, 13 Environmental, five Labour, two Human Rights, two Society and five Product Responsibility – for more technical and/or less common performance areas.

• Our team conducted page-by-page reviews of the 363 company reports – inclusive of any/all documents or web pages that were clearly referenced in the primary document – providing a basic assessment of whether or not responses to the indicators could be found. Each report review required an average of more than 3 hours of researcher effort, plus an additional hour of quality assurance (QA) and/or analysis.

• It is important to note that the scope of our research did not extend to giving a subjective assessment of whether or not the information provided was accurate, complete or reliable. Rather, our assessment was limited to determining whether or not our team could identify a ‘reasonable’ or ‘partial’ response to each indicator. As such, our ‘scoring’ was based on a 3-grade scale, as follows:

– A ‘reasonable response’ – a rating score of ‘2 of 2’ – for a response that provides enough information to establish a reasonable understanding of the reporting entity’s management of the indicator.

– A ‘partial response’ – a rating score of ‘1 of 2’ – for a response that offers some information regarding the indicator’s expectations, but not enough to fully understand the entity’s management of the indicator.

– A ‘non-response’ – a rating of ‘0 of 2’ – for any indicator where no response could be identified.

Upon completion, each ‘Gap Analysis’ was subjected to a high level peer Quality Assurance (QA) review to ensure that the assessment was comprehensively completed, and then a test for anomalies and/or obvious errors to be corrected. For the first time, our team went one very important step further, and issued each company-specific analysis to the reporting entity – if they had produced a “GRI-based Report”.

We firmly believe that the quality of our scoring system, and thus the resultant compliance score, is directly linked to the quality of≈the reports reviewed. In many cases, reports were extremely difficult to navigate, particularly lengthy reports that included incorrect GRI indicator tables, thus making it difficult to find indicator specific data. Ultimately, a report should be produced in a manner that would allow someone new to the company and/or to sustainability reporting to find meaningful data in a timely and efficient manner.

Although we respect that we may yet be corrected on one or more company-specific reviews, we believe that the scores

Just because a company said they offered a response – partial or complete – doesn’t mean our team agreed with the company’s assertion. In many cases, responses were ‘implicit’ (at best) and not ‘explicit’, or it was assumed that the reader of the report had memorised the content of the company’s prior reports. In many other cases, responses were buried in a web of online information, without clear guidance regarding where the response could be uncovered (thus, not really “available”).

To address this issue, our research includes “Non-Compliant” as a separate application level in our analysis. A company was deemed “Non-Compliant” regardless of whether or not the report had been “GRI-Checked” (by the GRI), or assured by a third party, and only assessed as such if they did not meet the GRI’s Application Level requirements.

Each GRI-based reporting company was given an opportunity to review our assessment, and argue our findings. Thus, our findings in this report should be deemed ‘fair’ (or ‘as fair as possible’).

NOTE

On top of your game?

BBBEECDP

KING III

5

presented in Appendix III are as accurate as could be established within the limits of the time invested in this research (more than 2 000 hours over a five-month period). All companies included in our research are invited to request a copy of our gap analysis assessment for their report – free of charge!

Unlike the reporting databases supplied by CorporateRegister.com and/or the GRI, our research not only leads to THE most comprehensive list of GRI-based reports in South Africa, but it also leads to an understanding of how many companies are producing reports that are ‘nearly there’. By evaluating all company reports, regardless of whether they cite the GRI Guidelines or declare an application level, our research provides a tool that all companies can use to help inform their future reporting processes.

The GRI Content Index table is not a ‘nice to have’, but rather a required element of GRI compliance, regardless of the application level being sought (C, B or A). The GRI is explicit about this on their website:

“Reports based on the GRI Guidelines without a GRI Content Index are included as “GRI-referenced”, but are not considered to be GRI reports.”

Companies that absurdly choose to produce an index table that guides the reader to a section of the report – and not a specific page(s) – should stop wasting everyone’s time and, more importantly, their money! Producing an indicator table that tells the reader to go to the “Environmental Section” to find a response to environmental indicators is useless. This is particularly pertinent to companies who foolishly avoid producing printed copies, or at least downloadable .pdf versions, of their report. With rare exceptions (e.g., Sasol,), few web-based sustainability reports are easily navigated.

When populating the GRI index table with page numbers, ensure that the page numbers refer to the final editor’s proof of the report, not to the Word document that was sent to the design team. The two reports are almost always completely inconsistent in page numbering. To get this right, it is advisable that companies avoid including the GRI Content Index in the actual printed report, but rather make the table available online, or via a ‘request via email’ mechanism. This allows for the report to be ‘done and dusted’ before the table is completed, thereby maximising the potential for page number accuracy (and reducing heaps of last minute stress at the printers).

TIPSThis document also includes an assessment of how well each of the GRI’s indicators are responded to, offering a table (Appendix IV) that breaks down responses for GRI and non-GRI reports. This table is based on requests from researchers, and is designed to help establish areas of specific concern that may require additional support for companies (e.g., reporting expectations for Human Rights).

Our ApologiesTo those companies who were unfairly evaluated and/or reported upon in last year’s research report – particularly Barloworld – we hereby sincerely apologise for getting the information wrong. We do our best to be ‘as accurate as possible’, but accept that we too are human… thus fallible… and thus likely to make mistakes.

To those companies who believe they have been unfairly excluded this year, or unfairly assessed, please email us at info@iras.co.za and we’ll do our best to sort out the problem, and – where necessary – make it up to you.

To those companies who believe that we shouldn’t be allowed to include our assessment of your report, our apology is simple, “Either accept it, or get over it!” Your report is public, and we don’t need your permission to review it, or to try to help you improve your reporting (particularly when we do it for mahala)!

| Research Scope, Objectives and Approach continued

6

SUSTAINABILITY

For listed companies, sustainability reporting is no longer a nice-to-have.

With a strategic approach to the broad spectrum of reporting requirements,

Russell & Associates brings fresh ideas to the incorporation of sustainability

matters into your quarterly, half-year and annual reporting to stakeholders,

building essential environmental, social and governance information into an

integrated reporting format, in both print and an on-line environment.

Contact us:Tel: +27 11 880 3924 / Fax: +27 11 880 3788 / E-mail: charmane@rair.co.zaFor more information please visit our online portfolio at www.russellandassociates.co.za

As a long-standing Organisational Stakeholder of the GRI we can help you to:• Identifythemostsignificantmaterialissuestoreport;

• Developyoursustainabilityreportingstrategy;

• Implementappropriatereportingandcommunicationsystems;and

• Developyourreports,fromconcepttofinishedproduct.

MATTERS

2012

.

rest assured...

aassurance advisory strategy.

www.earthinc.co.za

King III and the GRI Guidelines: The WHY and HOW of ReportingUnlike most countries, sustainability reporting in South Africa is less of a ‘nice to have’ than a ‘need to have’, particularly for listed companies. Whereas consumer, shareholder and/or other stakeholder requests for additional information drive reporting trends in the more developed economies of Europe and North America, the key motivation for integrated sustainability reporting in our context is centred around the listing requirements of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE).In many respects, the JSE’s requirements appear to be a measured attempt at responding to a combination of societal trends and the concerns of an unsettled international investor community. However, the corporate sector has repeatedly been able to prove that South Africa is not only a regional economic powerhouse, but also an internationally recognised innovation hub. Leading companies such as Bidvest, SAB, Sasol, Sappi, and many others, are able to demonstrate how success can be both borne and nurtured in a highly advanced business environment in South Africa, and then taken further afield into the rest of the world. As such, sustainability reporting, as part of a broader world-class corporate governance code (i.e., King III), is a mechanism that is often cited as a response to the growing international concern over the security of investments in South Africa, and a means of demonstrating how our companies are able to compete in international markets, with equal if not better governance standards.

At the same time, sustainability reporting has become a useful mechanism for communicating with local stakeholders who challenge businesses on matters pertaining to the fair distribution of wealth, black economic empowerment, climate change, a scarcity of potable water and other environmental issues. By reporting to stakeholders on an annual basis, companies are able to reduce conflict – as much as reasonably expected – while demonstrating that policies, procedures and management systems

are in place to help manage an array of company, industry and/or societal challenges.

Launched by the Institute of Directors (SA) in 2009, the King Report on Corporate Governance in SA, 2009 (King III, or ‘the Code’) became effective as of 2010, thereby requiring companies to ‘apply or explain’ 75 different recommendations (or ‘principles’) outlined within the Code. As a list of ‘recommendations’, the Code does not explicitly ‘demand’ compliance, but rather recommends that companies apply each of the 75 principles, or explain the reasons for not doing so. Broken down into nine separate chapters, the Code requires companies to address the following elements (Source: King III, www.iodsa.co.za):

1. Ethical leadership and corporate citizenship

2. Boards and directors

3. Audit committees

4. The governance of risk

5. The governance of information technology

6. Compliance with laws, rules, codes and standards

7. Internal audit

8. Governing stakeholder relationships

9. Integrated reporting and disclosure

Although integrated reporting falls at the end of the list, one shouldn’t confuse its positioning with some form of relegation to insignificance. Rather, the concept of integrated reporting is, to reapply the term, integrated throughout the Code, and is woven throughout all recent guidance on governance as a means of heightening the role of reporting as a means of informing business strategy. In fact, of the 75 governance principles cited within the Code (noting that ‘good governance’ is in essence all about ensuring ‘sustainability’), 20 of the principles deal directly with sustainability and/or integrated reporting matters, including (Source: King III, www.iodsa.co.za):

.

rest assured...

aassurance advisory strategy.

www.earthinc.co.za

.

rest assured...

aassurance advisory strategy.

www.earthinc.co.za

9

6.4 The board should delegate to management the implementation of an effective compliance framework and processes

6.4.5 The integrated report should include details of material or often repeated instances of non-compliance by either the company or its directors in their capacity as such

7.3 Internal audit should provide a written assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s system of internal controls and risk management

7.3.1 Internal audit should form an integral part of the combined assurance model as internal assurance provider

7.3.2 Internal controls should be established not only over financial matters, but also operational, compliance and sustainability issues

8.1 The board should appreciate that stakeholders’ perceptions affect a company’s reputation

8.2 The board should delegate to management to proactively deal with stakeholder relationships

8.3 The board should strive to achieve the appropriate balance between its various stakeholder groupings, in the best interests of the company

8.4 Companies should ensure the equitable treatment of shareholders

8.5 Transparent and effective communication with stakeholders is essential for building and maintaining their trust and confidence

8.6 The board should ensure that disputes are resolved as effectively, efficiently and expeditiously as possible

9.1 The board should ensure the integrity of the company’s integrated report

9.2 Sustainability reporting and disclosure should be integrated with the company’s financial reporting

9.3 Sustainability reporting and disclosure should be independently assured

1.1 The board should provide effective leadership based on an ethical foundation

Ethical leaders should:

1.1.1 direct the strategy and operations to build a sustainable business;

1.1.2 consider the short- and long-term impacts of the strategy on the economy, society and the environment;

1.1.3 do business ethically;

1.1.4 do not compromise the natural environment; and

1.1.5 take account of the company’s impact on internal and external stakeholders.

The board should:

1.1.9 promote the stakeholder-inclusive approach of governance.

1.2 The board should ensure that the company is and is seen to be a responsible corporate citizen

2.2 The board should appreciate that strategy, risk, performance and sustainability are inseparable

2.11 The board should appreciate that stakeholders’ perceptions affect the company’s reputation

2.12 The board should ensure the integrity of the company’s integrated report

3.4 The audit committee should oversee integrated reporting

3.10 The audit committee should report to the board and shareholders on how it has discharged its duties

3.10.4 The audit committee should recommend the integrated report for approval by the board

4.5 The board should ensure that risk assessments are performed on a continual basis

4.10 The board should ensure that there are processes in place enabling complete, timely, relevant, accurate and accessible risk disclosure to stakeholders

| King III and the GRI Guidelines continued

Although not explicitly mentioned within the principles found within the ‘Final’ version of King III, as they had been in Chapter 6 of the February 2009 Draft Code, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines remain a key recommended source of guidance for sustainability reporting. The Guidelines are cited not only as an emerging transparency trend throughout the world, but also as a mechanism for identifying subject matter that might be of material benefit for companies to manage and report upon to stakeholders.

All organisations (private, public, or non-profit) are encouraged to report against the Guidelines, whether they are beginners or more experienced reporters and regardless of their size, sector or location. The Guidelines are the most widely used in the sustainability reports of global companies, and are widely regarded as the ‘dé facto’ standard for sustainability reporting. In South Africa, the Guidelines are frequently viewed as a useful roadmap for companies embarking upon a journey towards effective reporting. Established to make the Guidelines relevant to all users, the reporting requirements are structured in a way that organisations can ease into reporting by attempting to comply with the GRI’s least tedious ‘Application Level’ (i.e., Level C), ultimately building up to more meaningful Level B or A reports.

Interestingly, King III has evolved from Kings I and II in a manner consistent with the GRI Guidelines, attempting to ensure that the Code is applicable to all entities regardless of the manner and form of their incorporation or establishment, and regardless of whether they exist in the public, private or non-profit sectors.

Whereas King (I, II and III) was developed primarily through the efforts of the South African Institute of Directors (IoDSA), the GRI is an Amsterdam-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) that works within an international multi-stakeholder process in order to develop what has become a seminal framework for transparency and accountability through sustainability reporting.

First released in 1999 and now in their third edition, the Guidelines have been adopted by a diverse range of organisations as the basis for their sustainability reporting. According to the database of reports provided by the GRI, there were 2 202 reports published by companies in 73 different countries in 2011, compared to only 10 reports published in 1999, demonstrating how the Guidelines are meeting the sustainability communication needs of a broader set of reporting entities.

Although initially developed and released for use in 1999, the Guidelines continue to undergo further development through a process of consensus-seeking dialogue with an international network of stakeholder groups including business, civil society, academia, unions and other professional institutions. According to the GRI, the process is “open, inclusive and takes a global

10

Section 5: Disclosures on Management Approach (one each for Economic, Environmental, Labour, Human Rights, Society and Product Responsibility)

Section 6: Economic Performance, including Market Presence and Indirect Economic Aspects (nine indicators, of which seven are ‘core’)

Section 7: Environmental Performance, including Materials, Energy, Water, Biodiversity, Emissions, Effluent & Waste, Compliance and Transport (30 indicators, of which 17 are ‘core’)

Section 8: Labour Performance, including Employment, Labour/ Management Relations, Occupational Health & Safety, Training & Education and Diversity & Equal Opportunity (14 indicators, of which nine are ‘core’)

Section 9: Human Rights Performance, including Strategy & Management, Non-discrimination, Freedom of Association, Child Labour and Forced Labour (nine indicators, of which six are ‘core’)

Section 10: Society Performance, including Community, Corruption, Public Policy and Compliance (eight indicators, of which six are ‘core’)

Section 11: Product Responsibility, including Customer Health & Safety, Products & Services, Marketing & Communication and Customer Privacy (nine indicators, of which four are ‘core’)

perspective on the growing understanding of good reporting on key sustainability issues.”

Having been enhanced as knowledge and awareness of key sustainability matters have evolved, and as the needs of reporters and users have changed, the Guidelines have recently been updated to version 3.1 and are currently in the process of undergoing a complete renovation process that will ultimately lead to the fourth generation of Guidelines, or “G4”. The G4 version is currently doing the rounds in draft format, and is expected to be launched at the GRI’s next global sustainability reporting conference in Amsterdam in May 2013.

The GRI G3 Guidelines are presented according to the following categories of indicators, whereby anyone wishing to produce a report that meets the Application Level A requirements, all of the profile and boundary indicators (sections 1 to 4, listed below) are required, as well as all of the ‘core performance indicators’:

Section 1: Strategy and Analysis (two indicators)

Section 2: Organisational Profile (10 indicators)

Section 3: Report Profile (four indicators) Report Scope and Boundary (seven indicators) GRI Content Index (one indicator) Assurance over the report (one indicator)

Section 4: Governance (10 indicators) Commitment to External Initiatives (three indicators) Stakeholder Engagement (four indicators)

CDP & GRI certified Software SolutionsPE INTERNATIONAL provides long-term support for South African clients with CDP & GRI accredited software solutions and consultancy services in the complete field of sustainability:

• Product & Corporate Carbon Footprinting

• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

• Energy Efficiency Assessment & Management

• Sustainability Reporting

• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmaps

www.pe-international.com

PE INTERNATIONALE X P E R T S I N S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

PE INTERNATIONAL (South Africa)Call us 082 373 4055m.reichardt@pe-international.com

With 20 years experience PE INTERNATIONAL has a satisfied client community in over 70 countries. And more than 1 000 multinationals, including 9 JSE listed companies, use our services and software solutions.

www.pe-international.com

CDP & GRI certified Software Solutions PE INTERNATIONAL provides long-term support for South African clients with CDP & GRI accredited software solutions and consultancy services in the complete field of sustainability:

• Product & Corporate Carbon Footprinting• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)• Energy Efficiency Assessment & Management• Sustainability Reporting• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmaps

With 20 years experience PE INTERNATIONAL has a satisfied client community in over 70 countries. And more than 1.000 multinationals, including 9 JSE listed companies, use our services and software solutions.

PE INTERNATIONAL (South Africa). Call us 082 373 4055m.reichardt@pe-international.com

(Source: www.globalreporting.org)

11

As the most comprehensive and wide-ranging of sustainability reporting recommendations, it is generally accepted that the Guidelines can be used as the basis for producing integrated annual and/or sustainability reports that can be deemed ‘comparable’ within industries and/or countries, or between them. However, the Guidelines, even in their G3 format, remain somewhat limited in their ability to establish a ‘one size fits all’ reporting methodology. As such, the GRI has established a number of ‘Sector Supplements’ that help adapt the Guidelines to the unique characteristics of specific industries, or sectors (e.g., Metals & Mining, NGOs, Airport Operators, Electric Utilities, etc.). These supplements complement rather than replace the standard Guidelines by allowing reporters an opportunity to respond to an industry-specific set of sustainability issues, including the following sectors:

• Airport Operations

• Apparel and Footwear (in pilot version)

• Automotive (in pilot version)

• Construction and Real Estate

• Electric Utilities

• Event Organisers

• Financial Services

• Food Processing

• Logistics and Transportation (in pilot version)

• Media

• Mining and Metals

• NGO

• Oil and Gas (in pilot version)

• Public Agency (in pilot version)

• Telecommunications (in pilot version)

Although some might argue that the GRI G3 Guidelines are too far-reaching and/or complicated to follow, the collective experience of a wide array of companies, institutions and non-governmental organisations in more than 70 countries suggests otherwise. Based solely on the experience of South African reporting entities, including Impahla Clothing, an SMME supplier to PUMA as well as Cotlands, Little Eden and SMYLe (all NGOs), and the 124 other identified ‘G3 reporters’, the G3 Guidelines are both meaningful

| King III and the GRI Guidelines continued

and manageable. It should be noted that some indicators require little more than a basic statement of disclosure to meet the reporting requirements, including such basic requirements as stating the reporting entity’s name, or including a G3 Indicator Table (a list of references to the indicators, including whether or not a disclosure has been included in the report). More information on compliance to the GRI’s G3 Guidelines can be sourced from the GRI’s website. However, one must also note that the question still remains,

Is there such a thing as a ‘good sustainability report’ that is not necessarily a ‘good GRI report’?

Once again, the answer is an emphatic “Yes!”

Several of the non-GRI sustainability reports that were reviewed by our team were ultimately regarded as excellent reports (see table below). Not only did they score well in terms of the GRI G3 content assessment we measured each report by – despite not explicitly mentioning use of the GRI Guidelines – but they also managed to provide meaningful discussions about the overall sustainability performance of the reporting entity. However, the question isn’t “Should we report according to the GRI or not”, but rather, “Why wouldn’t you report according to the GRI?”

The GRI Guidelines are either required or recommended by:

• King III, for all JSE-listed companies. Moreover, the GRI G3 Guidelines provide an internationally recognised comprehensive framework for reporting that allows for immediate comparability and benchmarking. Thus, if one is to set out on a path to

enlightened sustainability reporting, the question of whether or not to adhere to the GRI G3 Guidelines is rhetorical. Why wouldn’t you?

• The Public Investment Corporation (PIC, the government’s principle investment arm, assuming one ignores the stories about Chancellor House), for all entities in which the PIC has an interest.

• The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), the industry body to which many South African mining companies belong.

• The JSE’s Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index, which annually reviews the sustainability performance of South Africa’s largest companies (by market cap).

• A growing number of ‘responsible investment’ mechanisms among the more proactive asset managers and/or pension funds (more to come on this in the coming months).

Moreover, the GRI G3 Guidelines provide an internationally recognised comprehensive framework for reporting that allows for immediate comparability and benchmarking. Thus, if one is to set out on a path to enlightened sustainability reporting, the question of whether or not to adhere to the GRI G3 Guidelines is rhetorical. Why wouldn’t you?

For more answers to the “Why wouldn’t you?” debate, refer to our conversation with leading reporters, in the “Why Bother” section of this report.

Our Personal FavouritesCompany Level Sector Score Rank

Sasol A+ Energy & Natural Resources 99.6% 1

Lonmin plc NC(A+) Metals & Mining 94.1% 5

Sappi A Energy & Natural Resources 93.3% 6

Anglo American plc A+ Metals & Mining 88.5% 11

Grindrod Ltd B+ Transportation 73.9% 30

Illovo Sugar B+ Food & Beverages 73.5% 31

Woolworths NC(B+) Retail 72.3% 34

Astrapak Not GRI General Industry 31.6% 154

A full set of GRI G3 Indicators, including basic definitions, can be downloaded from the GRI’s website (www.globalreporting.org), or from our website (www.iras.co.za), or can be viewed in the format we have included in Appendix IV of this report.

NOTE

To ensure that this research project maintained a maximum level of comparability, the 363 reports were assessed against the main set of indicators and did not consider any of the industry-specific sector supplements.

NOTE

12

| GRI Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings

compliant with a minimum score of only 25.3%, while A-level compliance can occur with a minimum score of 56.7%.

Of principal interest to the research team, it was determined that of the 2 202 GRI-based sustainability reports identified via the GRI’s own database of reports (updated using data from our research), 128 (5.8%) are from South African companies. In fact, and although the number of listed ‘reporting countries’ rose from 53 in 2008 to 64 in 2010 and 73 in 2011, it was interesting to note that the top 10 reporting countries, by number of reports, accounted for 1 216 of the 2 202 reports, or 55.2%, while the top 15 countries accounted for 1 503 of the listed reports (68.3%).

The continued growth in the number of GRI-based reports, and reporting countries, is further evidence that the influence of the GRI G3 Guidelines is continuing to spread. Whereas there were only 41 countries represented on the GRI’s list of reporting entities seven years ago, there are now 73, with the list being relatively

• Profile and strategy indicators (1.1 to 4.17) had an average response rate of 89.1% among GRI-based reports and 55.5% among non-GRI-based reports.

• Disclosure on Management Approach indicators had an average response rate of 53.5% among GRI-based reports and only 10.8% among non-GRI-based reports.

• Amongst the performance indicators for GRI-based reports, the Economic indicators had the highest levels of responses, with an average response rate of 62.8%, followed by Labour Practices (51.1%), Society (48.7%), Product Responsibility (42.5%), Human Rights (36.9%) and then Environmental (36.8%).

• The research team invested more than 1 600 hours in the primary review portion of this project, plus no fewer than 1 000 hours in the Quality Assurance (QA), writing and editing phase.

• This report is provided to ALL reporting entities without cost, as part of our commitment to helping companies improve their progress towards effective integrated sustainability reporting in South Africa. This report is also shared with the more than 60 known ‘other sustainability reporting practitioners’ (i.e., our peers, colleagues and competitors), based on our belief that while ‘knowledge is power’, public domain information should be shared for common benefit.

• 30 of our peers, colleagues and competitors have advertised in this report…helping to cover the cost of our launch event, in exchange for the opportunity to assist the IRAS team in our own pursuit of sustainability!

In reviewing the 363 reports we settled on as our ‘comprehensive reports database’, the goal was not simply to focus on companies that explicitly referred to the GRI’s G3 Guidelines, but rather to assess compliance to the Guidelines regardless of whether or not the reporting entities appear to be aware of them. In doing so, ‘compliance’, for the purposes of this exercise, was extended to whether or not reports offered at least a ‘basic response’ to each of the G3 indicators, including the full list of the 127 indicators and management approach disclosure requirements. Our goal was not necessarily to assess the accuracy of any of the responses, but rather to determine if ‘reasonable’ or ‘partial’ responses could be found.

Ultimately, our research team identified 128 GRI G3-based reports and 66 ‘near-reporters’ (i.e., companies that scored above the minimum C-level compliance score of 25.3%), and hereby offer up a ranking of reports relative to GRI G3 compliance.

Scoring was based on a simple 0, 1 or 2 scale, where 0 was scored for ‘no response’, 1 was scored for a ‘basic response’ and 2 was scored for a ‘reasonable response’. As such, it is important to note that a company could be GRI G3 C-level (i.e., ‘entry level’)

• The research team reviewed annual and/or sustainability reports from more than 400 reporting entities, based on an initial list supplied by the JSE (supplemented by reports from other ‘known reporters’).

• Several JSE-listed companies were excluded from the population sample due to a lack of adequate reporting (e.g., some companies were new to the JSE and thus had yet to produce an Annual Report, while others were in the process of de-listing), while others were excluded for being deemed ‘un-South African’ by virtue of their primary administrative offices no longer being in South Africa.

• The final population sample of reviewed reports was settled at 363, down significantly from the 392 in our last report (383 in our 2010 report).

• 128 reporting entities (35.3%) were found to produce GRI G3-based reports, up from 100 (25.5%) last year, and 86 (22.5%) in our 2010 report.

• 10 companies declared a GRI application level of A+, two declared A, 24 declared B+, 11 declared B, 10 declared C+, and 42 declared C. While 29 companies did not declare an application level, and were therefore classified as ‘ND’, a further 32 companies declared a level that was determined to be inaccurate (i.e., the report was ‘not compliant’ based on missing information), including three that had been assured. As such, these companies were rated as ‘Not Compliant’, or ‘NC’.

• 66 reporting entities (18.2%) were found to produce reports that nearly met the GRI G3 requirements… based on a GRI compliance score equal or greater than the minimum score for GRI compliance (25.3%).

• 52 reports were found to have been assured, of which 29 (55.8%) were assured by one or more of the Big 4 accounting firms, and 12 (23.1%) were assured ourselves at IRAS (formerly SustainabilityServices.co.za).

• 16 reports (30.8%) assured in South Africa were assured using AccountAbility’s AA1000AS Assurance Standard, demonstrating continued significant growth in the application of the standard by various assurance providers.

• The average GRI compliance score for non-assured reports was 51.1%, whereas the average for assured reports was 71.9%. The lowest score for an assured report was 29.6%, barely above the minimum score required for GRI compliance (25.3%). The lowest score for a non-assured GRI-based report was 22.9% (thus ‘non-compliant’).

• The average response rate for all 127 GRI indicators was 33.8%, of which GRI-based reporters provided responses with an average response rate of 61.8%, compared to 24.4% for non-GRI-based reports.

GRI Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings Each report was reviewed in great detail, whereby the average review time per report exceeded 4 hours. Thus, it should be noted that where a report was deemed difficult to review, the research team may have recorded a ‘no response’ rating (i.e., a score of ‘0’ for a specific indicator) based on their inability to find a response, even though the reporting entity may ultimately be able to help find one.

Perhaps it’s not my place to speculate about subterfuge, but I find it rather interesting that in the year when China suddenly emerges as one of the “top 10 reporting countries” (#6 with 118 reports), the historical record of Taiwan’s share of the GRI’s reporting database has disappeared. Not only does Taiwan no longer appear in this year’s record of GRI-based reports, but the reference to Taiwanese companies’ reports prior to 2011 – still residing in my backed-up records from each of the past three years – is nowhere to be found. Given that China does not allow its trade partners to recognise Taiwan as “a country”, maybe it’s safe to assume that the GRI has been pushed in a more ‘China-friendly’ direction. Hmmm…

NOTE

NOTE

14

diverse and, including such surprises as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Nigeria, Mongolia and Palestine.

Of course, one must remember that the information supplied by the GRI is not completely accurate. The mere fact that the GRI only records 68 SA companies in their database when their attention was drawn to the 100 companies we identified in our 2011 research report (reviewing reports published for 2010) suggests that a 47.1% margin of error may be possible across the entire global database. As such, our assertion that SA is the 3rd largest sustainability reporting entity for 2011 must be taken with a proverbial pinch of salt.

At present, the database supplied by CorporateRegister.com is the best possible comparative tool available to assess the uptake of the GRI G3 Guidelines across the full 13-year span of GRI

GRI+13 GRI+12

Reports GRI Avg Score Non-GRI Avg Score % GRI Reports GRI Avg Score Non-GRI Avg Score % GRI

Metals & Mining 56 24 69.7% 32 22.3% 42.9% 67 24 68.3% 43 18.1% 35.8%

Banking & Financial Services 55 14 60.8% 41 20.3% 25.5% 63 17 55.7% 46 18.2% 27.0%

Construction & Materials 36 10 51.1% 26 23.2% 27.8% 37 5 51.3% 32 20.9% 15.6%

Real Estate 26 2 41.3% 24 19.5% 7.7% 27 0 27 16.3% 0.0%

Services & Other 23 4 46.9% 19 21.2% 17.4% 9 5 67.6% 4 14.5% 42.9%

Retail 21 8 55.6% 13 22.7% 38.1% 21 7 60.6% 14 21.0% 33.3%

Food & Beverages 21 8 54.9% 13 24.3% 38.1% 20 5 48.7% 15 23.5% 25.0%

Electronics & Electrical Equipment 17 6 53.8% 11 21.3% 35.3% 17 3 60.8% 14 18.8% 17.6%

Engineering & Support Services 14 8 39.9% 6 15.9% 57.1% 28 4 37.9% 24 17.2% 14.3%

General Industry 13 7 64.9% 6 25.0% 53.8% 14 5 63.6% 9 20.2% 35.7%

Software & Computers 12 3 31.8% 9 20.9% 25.0% 16 1 50.4% 15 20.8% 6.3%

ICT – Info, Comms & Telecoms 10 4 56.4% 6 16.6% 40.0% 8 3 55.5% 5 14.9% 37.5%

Transportation 10 6 55.7% 4 20.6% 60.0% 7 3 55.0% 4 16.7% 42.9%

Hotels & Leisure 9 3 85.2% 6 18.8% 33.3% 14 3 43.8% 11 19.7% 21.4%

Energy & Natural Resources 7 4 85.2% 3 14.9% 57.1% 9 3 83.3% 6 16.7% 33.3%

Media & Communications 7 4 55.3% 3 20.8% 57.1% 9 3 34.5% 6 18.2% 33.3%

Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 6 2 53.0% 4 21.9% 33.3% 5 1 64.2% 4 22.9% 20.0%

Health 5 4 57.1% 1 24.1% 80.0% 5 2 54.5% 3 30.6% 40.0%

Chemicals 5 3 43.1% 2 26.5% 60.0% 6 4 49.0% 2 17.3% 66.7%

Household & Leisure Goods 4 0 4 33.1% 0.0% 7 1 54.7% 6 22.5% 14.3%

NGO 3 3 62.3% 62.3% 100.0%

Automotive & Parts 3 1 45.5% 2 23.9% 33.3% 3 1 70.5% 2 16.3% 33.3%363 128 235 25.1% 392 100 292 25.1%

Average GRI-compliance score: 58.3% 19.0% 58.3% 19.0%

Increase in GRI-based reports: 28.0% 20.5%

Reports by Industry/Sector

reporting, although the GRI’s own database can be useful in cross-checking for lapses. However, because CorporateRegister.com has opted to ban IRAS from using its database on the basis of our willingness to share our research results with everyone – including the GRI – we can only draw your attention to their excellent database: we can’t use it, and thus can’t offer you any research findings based on their data. Nonetheless, based on the available data, South Africa has made the following moves in terms of our dominance in GRI-based reporting over the past few years: from tied for 7th position in our review of 2007 reports, to 3rd for 2008 reports, to 5th for 2009 and 2010 reports, to 3rd for 2011 reports.

Regardless of the accuracy of these figures, the results clearly suggest that South Africa is among a rare breed of countries

successfully implementing the GRI G3 Guidelines as a means for demonstrating maximum transparency and accountability. More specifically, the Metals & Mining, Banking & Financial Services, Retail, Health, Energy & Natural Resources and Construction & Materials sectors, within the South African economy, represent local leaders in sustainability reporting. Thus, it should come as little surprise that the GRI has identified South Africa as the next “GRI Focal Point”, following the establishment of FPs in Australia, Brazil, China, India and the US (as well as their global offices in the Netherlands). Apparently, it is their intention to ensure that the leadership position of South Africa is used as a platform for rolling out the Guidelines into the rest of Africa.

15

| GRI G3 Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings continued

Country Reports

1 USA 231

2 Spain 164

3 South Africa 128

4 Sweden 122

5 Brazil 119

6 China 118

7 Netherlands 93

8 Germany 89

9 Australia 83

10 UK 69

11 Switzerland 69

12 Canada 63

13 Italy 58

14 Republic of Korea 53

15 Russian Federation 44

16 Austria 43

17 Argentina 39

18 India 39

19 Japan 37

20 Finland 36

21 Chile 36

22 Greece 35

23 Portugal 35

24 Mexico 34

25 Peru 33

26 Colombia 31

27 Hungary 30

28 France 29

29 Belgium 24

30 Denmark 19

31 Norway 17

32 Turkey 17

33 Israel 15

34 Philippines 13

35 New Zealand 12

36 Singapore 12

37 Poland 12

Country Reports

38 Thailand 11

39 United Arab Emirates 10

40 Malaysia 8

41 Ecuador 7

42 Sri Lanka 7

43 Bolivia 4

44 Jordan 4

45 Saudi Arabia 4

46 Uruguay 3

47 Costa Rica 3

48 Croatia 3

49 Czech Republic 3

50 Indonesia 3

51 Ireland 3

52 Luxembourg 3

53 Bulgaria 2

54 Honduras 2

55 Pakistan 2

56 Romania 2

57 Kuwait 1

58 Albania 1

59 Andorra 1

60 Bangladesh 1

61 Egypt 1

62 Estonia 1

63 Georgia 1

64 Kenya 1

65 Latvia 1

66 Mongolia 1

67 Nigeria 1

68 Papua New Guinea 1

69 Qatar 1

70 Serbia 1

71 Slovakia 1

72 Slovenia 1

73 Ukraine 1

Who’s Reporting? (www.globalreporting.org)

The above table has been extracted from the GRI’s database for reporting purposes even though the data is known to be incorrect. The information for South Africa has been updated using our own results.

NOTE

16

Of the 363 companies reviewed, 111 (30.6%) are from the Metals & Mining and Banking & Financial Services sectors, with 38 of the 128 GRI-based reports coming from these two sectors alone. Meanwhile, three of the nine companies in the Hotels & Leisure, and four of the seven companies in the Energy & Natural Resources sectors produced excellent GRI-based reports, with an average GRI-compliance score of 85.2%: the highest for any industry sector. However, not a single GRI based report was found for any of the four companies in the Household & Leisure Goods sector, and only two of the 26 in the Real Estate sector.

Overall, more than 35% of the 363 (mostly JSE-listed) South African reporting entities reviewed, were found to produce annual and/or sustainability reports that adhere to the GRI G3 Guidelines.

u Interesting notes

The principle of ‘do as I say, not as I do’ continues to hold true at the JSE, and to a lesser extent at Brait (now that King is no longer at the Chairman’s helm).

Opting NOT to produce a GRI-based report, in line with their own King III recommendations, the JSE’s report ranked 170th with a GRI compliance score of 29.2%, which is not only an improvement on last year’s 24.4% (albeit ranked 151st), but also a score in excess of the GRI compliance minimum of 25.3%, which would classify the JSE as a ‘near GRI reporter’.

Brait, at which Mervyn King was the Chairman while heading the King Commissions on corporate governance in South Africa, did manage to declare that they had produced a GRI-based report in 2010, yet our team could not find adequate evidence to support this claim, and did not appear to make a similar assertion this year. Their current report scored 26.9% – thus, another ‘near GRI reporter’ – and ranked 181st out of 363 reports.

Once again, it should be noted that none of the research team understood who the JSE Limited and/or Brait were, particularly in the context of sustainability reporting in South Africa, prior to the completion of the scoring process. Thus, no research bias was applied to these entities, and thus I calmly assert that I’m not trying to pick on them!

For the third consecutive year Sasol rose to the top of our ranking of GRI compliance scores for South African sustainability reports, with an impressive 99.6% compliance score, while Gold Fields scored 96.0% and Wilderness Safaris scored 94.9%. Granted, many of the 363 reports reviewed were regarded by the research team as ‘equally impressive’ from a qualitative perspective, but the primary purpose of this exercise was to determine the extent to which companies have been applying the GRI G3 Guidelines.

Not unexpectedly, eight of the top 20 reporting entities are from within the Metals & Mining sector, and another three are from the Energy & Natural Resources sector, thus 11 (55%) are from high environmental impact sectors. However, it may come as somewhat of a surprise that Little Eden, an NGO that provides care to persons with severe mental disabilities, opted to rigorously apply the GRI Guidelines to its first integrated annual report, rounding out the top 20 with a GRI compliance score of 79.1%. The rationale behind such a move, was to use the GRI Guidelines, following in the footsteps of Cotlands, in an attempt to not only assert that they had the necessary financial and governance controls in place to merit the contributions they receive from donors, but also to assess where process improvement might be possible. For anyone setting out on a brand new reporting journey, Little Eden’s first GRI-based report is well worth reviewing, as it offers up countless examples of how the Guidelines can be applied effectively.

Corporate reporting specialist

since 1996

A veteran writer, editor and architect of company reports and business bids, Clive Lotter routinely

consults to listed companies and design agencies.

As a pathfinder in King III and GRI3.1 compliance, Clive is adept at structuring and preparing reports

to meet current requirements.

Skills checklist

Services offered with proven associates

Structuring integrated annual and sustainability reports

Report writing/editing

Preparing and interviewing key persons

Gap and peer group analyses of reports

Design, layout, proofreading

Independent assurance

CLIVE lotter

PO box 84072Greenside 2034Johannesburg

Cell: +27 (0) 82 920 3731Tel: +27 (0) 11 021 1668

Email: clive.lotter@gmail.com

Clive LotterconsultantWordsmith

A team leader or team player, depending on your brief, Clive Lotter is your first choice

for compliant and tailored corporate reporting.

Contact: Clive Lotter082 920 3731

clive.lotter@gmail.com

CLIVE AD.indd 2 2012/06/27 2:28 PM

17

Top 20 GRI ReportsCompany Sector Score GRI AL

1 Sasol Energy & Natural Resources 99.6% A+2 Gold Fields Metals & Mining 96.0% A+3 Wilderness Hotels & Leisure 94.9% B+4 Barloworld General Industry 94.1% A+

5 Lonmin Metals & Mining 94.1% NC(A+)6 Sappi Energy & Natural Resources 93.3% A7 African Rainbow Minerals Metals & Mining 90.9% A+8 Impahla Clothing General Industry 89.3% ND9 Xstrata South Africa Metals & Mining 88.9% B+10 Anglo American Platinum Metals & Mining 88.5% A+11 Anglo American plc Metals & Mining 88.5% A+12 Kumba Iron Ore Metals & Mining 87.7% NC(A+)13 African Bank Banking & Financial Services 84.6% B+14 Phumelela Gaming & Leisure Hotels & Leisure 84.6% C15 Sanlam Banking & Financial Services 82.6% B+16 Altron Electronics & Electrical Equipment 81.8% B+17 Distribution & Warehousing Network Construction & Materials 81.8% A18 Mondi Energy & Natural Resources 81.0% B+19 Northam Platinum Metals & Mining 79.8% B+20 Little Eden NGO 79.1% B+

Equally unsurprising is the fact that 24 of the 128 GRI-based reports are from the Metals & Mining sector. This is undoubtedly due to the nature of mining, both in terms of the high energy consumption and other environmental impacts, as well as the direct link to high occupational health & safety risks. However, an interesting anomaly has arisen with respect to companies in the Banking & Financial Services sector. Although 55 of the 363 companies reviewed, and 14 of the 128 GRI-based reports, are from this sector, none of the reports for this sector scored within the Top 10 and only two – African Bank and Sanlam – scored within in the Top 20 (13th and 15th, respectively), yet six scored within the bottom 20 reports. The tables on the next page show the sector analyses for each of 18 common industry sectors, plus ‘Miscellaneous’, which is an amalgamation of all sectors represented by fewer than three different reporting entities. It’s interesting to note that the average scores – per sector – ranged from 85.2% for the Energy & Natural Resources and Hotel & Leisure sectors (tied), to 31.8% for the Software & Computers sector.

We are a multi-disciplinary creative consultancy offering a complete range of communication services. Partnering with you, we produce content and design of uncompromising quality.

011 783 3187 info@itbmedia.co.za www.itbmedia.co.za

Communicate

Create

Collaborate

18

page by page

delivering excellence in integrated reports

with integrated process analysis

specialist writing and

relevant information design

every page

on the

www.envisagesa.co.za +27 11 325 5944

Salome Brown communications

pagesame

19

(GR

I +13

) 201

2

App

licat

ion

Leve

l

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 R

ank

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +12

) 201

1 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +11

) 201

0 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

Banking & Financial Services

African Bank B+ 13 84.6 61.8 47.2

Sanlam B+ 15 82.6 60.6 57.9

Standard Bank B+ 22 79.1 76.4 79.1

Nedbank A+ 23 78.7 67.3 69.3

Absa Group B+ 33 72.3 60.2 59.4

Liberty B+ 35 71.9 76.8 70.5

Brimstone ND 47 66.4 58.7 24.8

Santam B 52 62.1 52.8 39.4

MMI Holdings C 79 49.4 15.0

Investec NC(B) 100 42.7 55.5 59.1

Sasfin C 103 41.9 21.7 25.2

FirstRand ND 106 41.1 40.6 46.9

Efficient Group C+ 115 39.5 17.7 20.5

Finbond C 116 39.5 16.9 19.7 Average 60.8 48.7 47.6 Chemicals

AECI ND 86 47.0 43.3 44.9

Omnia NC(C) 96 44.7 49.2 44.5

African Oxygen ND 126 37.5 61.4 73.2 Average 43.1 51.3 54.2 Construction & Materials

Distribution & Warehousing Network A 17 81.8 37.8 52.8

Group Five ND 41 69.2 61.0 60.2

Pretoria Portland Cement C+ 65 54.9 57.1 65.7

Murray & Roberts B+ 71 52.6 55.9 58.3

Esorfranki C 74 50.6 24.4 28.7

Basil Read NC(C) 81 49.0 41.3 32.7

Wilson Bayly Homes-Ovcon C 91 46.2 31.5 37.8

Buildmax C 113 39.5 18.5 27.2

Stefanutti Stocks C 125 37.9 29.1 31.1

KayDav C+ 163 29.6 11.0 16.1 Average 51.1 36.8 41.1

| GRI G3 Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings continued

(GR

I +13

) 201

2

App

licat

ion

Leve

l

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 R

ank

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +12

) 201

1 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +11

) 201

0 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

Electronics & Electrical Equipment

Altron B+ 16 81.8 68.9 54.3

Altech B+ 27 75.9 68.1 43.3

Reunert ND 85 48.2 45.3 33.5

Digicore C+ 95 44.7 22.0 32.7

Delta EMD ND 118 39.1 19.3 16.9

Consolidated Infrastructure Group NC(C) 144 33.2 17.3 Average 53.8 40.2 36.1 Energy & Natural Resources

Sasol A+ 1 99.6 99.6 94.9

Sappi A 6 93.3 87.4 79.5

Mondi B+ 18 81.0

Eskom B+ 45 66.8 63.0 60.2 Average 85.2 83.3 78.2 Engineering & Support Services

PSV C+ 55 59.7 18.5 21.7

Primeserv ND 90 46.2 22.4 33.1

OneLogix C 105 41.5 38.6 23.6

Howden Africa C 111 40.3 42.1 22.0

Austro Group C+ 121 38.3 15.7 24.8

Iliad Africa NC(C) 143 33.6 43.7 33.1

Hudaco Industries NC(C) 159 30.0 27.2 33.9

Top Fix Holdings NC(C) 164 29.6 14.6 23.6 Average 39.9 27.9 27.0 Food & Beverages

Illovo Sugar B+ 31 73.5 53.5 32.3

Afgri C 40 69.2 50.0 39.0

Tongaat Hulett B+ 42 68.8 57.5 43.7

Astral Foods ND 66 54.2 37.4 39.4

Distell NC(C) 67 53.8 33.9 37.4

Rainbow Chicken ND 73 51.8 55.5 50.8

AVI ND 135 36.4 18.9 35.4

Country Bird ND 153 31.6 18.1 24.4 Average 54.9 40.6 37.8

(GR

I +13

) 201

2

App

licat

ion

Leve

l

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 R

ank

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +12

) 201

1 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +11

) 201

0 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

General Industry

Barloworld A+ 4 94.1 61.0 82.7

Impahla Clothing ND 8 89.3 90.6 67.7

Bidvest ND 48 65.6 61.0 59.8

Nampak C 58 58.5 57.5 59.1

Denel ND 77 49.8 57.9

Mpact C 83 48.6

Eqstra ND 84 48.2 48.0 49.6 Average 64.9 62.7 63.8 Health

Netcare B 25 76.7 41.7 50.4

Mediclinic NC(C) 51 62.1 52.8 52.4

Discovery B 70 52.6 56.3 55.9

Life Healthcare ND 128 37.2 37.0 Average 57.1 47.0 52.9 Hotels & Leisure

Wilderness B+ 3 94.9 24.0

Phumelela Gaming & Leisure C 14 84.6 52.0 23.6

Sun International B+ 26 76.3 43.7 42.9 Average 85.2 39.9 33.3 ICT – Info, Comms & Telecoms

MTN NC(B) 44 67.6 81.9 31.9

Vodacom NC(B) 59 58.5 49.2 43.7

Telkom C+ 68 53.4 35.4 42.9

Morvest C+ 89 46.2 Average 56.4 55.5 39.5 Media & Communications

Avusa NC(C) 46 66.4 30.3 31.1

Media24 NC(C) 64 54.9 27.2 38.2

Naspers NC(C) 75 50.6 37.0 37.0

MultiChoice NC(C) 80 49.4 39.4 29.9 Average 55.3 33.5 34.1

GRI Reports by Industry Sector

20

(GR

I +13

) 201

2

App

licat

ion

Leve

l

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 R

ank

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +12

) 201

1 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +11

) 201

0 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

Metals & Mining

Gold Fields A+ 2 96.0 94.9 64.6

Lonmin NC(A+) 5 94.1 93.3 85.4

African Rainbow Minerals A+ 7 90.9 82.3 65.0

Xstrata South Africa B+ 9 88.9 68.1

Anglo American Platinum A+ 10 88.5 83.5 89.4

Anglo American plc A+ 11 88.5 86.6 83.1

Kumba Iron Ore NC(A+) 12 87.7 57.5

Northam Platinum B+ 19 79.8 81.9 64.2

Anglo Gold Ashanti A+ 24 77.5 85.0 85.8

Harmony Gold B+ 28 75.1 81.9 83.5

Merafe Resources B+ 29 74.7 61.4 84.6

Exxarro B+ 32 72.7 70.1 72.0

Impala Platinum B+ 36 70.8 61.4 76.4

Evraz Highveld Steel & Vanadium NC(C) 39 69.6 74.4 74.8

Royal Bafokeng Platinum B+ 43 68.0 57.1

Arcelor Mittal ND 49 64.4 54.3 44.9

DRD Gold NC(C) 54 60.5 65.0 59.1

Aquarius Platinum NC(C) 57 58.5 56.3 48.8

Witwatersrand Consolidated Gold C 69 53.0 22.0 22.4

Wesizwe Platinum NC(C) 82 49.0 28.3 33.9

Assore C 87 46.6 42.9 36.6

Eastern Platinum NC(B) 92 45.5 33.1

Keaton Energy NC(C) 119 39.1 39.8 29.9

Richards Bay Minerals NC(C) 134 36.8 Average 69.8 64.4 63.4 NGO

Little Eden B+ 20 79.1

Soweto Marimba Youth League C 63 55.7

Cotlands ND 72 52.2 55.5 54.3

Average 62.3 55.5 54.3

(GR

I +13

) 201

2

App

licat

ion

Leve

l

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 R

ank

(GR

I +13

) 201

2 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +12

) 201

1 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

(GR

I +11

) 201

0 G

RI

Com

plia

nce

Sco

re %

Retail

Massmart ND 21 79.1 82.7 73.6 Woolworths NC(B+) 34 72.3 58.7 54.3 Foschini ND 37 70.4 83.5 40.9 JD Group ND 38 70.4 70.9 37.8 Clicks ND 114 39.5 36.2 48.4 Verimark ND 120 39.1 12.2 18.5 Truworths ND 129 37.2 42.5 46.1 Holdsport ND 133 36.8 Average 55.6 55.2 45.7 Services & Other

Umgeni Water NC(B) 53 62.1 52.0 50.4 Adcorp ND 94 44.7 24.4 31.1 Blue Label Telecoms C+ 98 43.9 54.3 48.0 Workforce NC(C) 130 37.2 19.3 24.8 Average 46.9 37.5 38.6 Software & Computers

Gijima NC(B) 124 37.9 50.4 26.0 Business Connexion NC(C) 141 34.4 33.5 38.6 Silverbridge NC(C) 210 22.9 18.9 21.3 Average 31.8 34.3 28.6 Transportation

Grindrod B+ 30 73.9 68.9 68.9 Transnet C 60 58.1 37.0 54.3 Comair C 61 56.9 29.5 32.3 Imperial C 62 56.5 59.1 55.9 Value Group C 88 46.6 26.4 Cargo Carriers C 101 42.3 15.4 22.4 Average 55.7 42.0 43.4 Miscellaneous

Aspen Pharmacare NC(B) 50 62.5 64.2 53.5 Metair Investments C+ 93 45.5 20.1 21.3 Adcock Ingram NC(B) 99 43.5 31.1 37.8 Redefine Properties ND 102 42.3 22.4 Hyprop Investments ND 112 40.3 21.7 28.0 Average 46.8 31.9 35.2

21

appear to have mastered the Profile Disclosures, Organisational Profile, Report Parameter and Governance Indicators, the same cannot be said for the Human Rights, Product Responsibility and Environmental indicators, which appear to trouble reporters.

Average Response Rate per G3 Category of IndicatorsGRI Reports Non-GRI Reports

GRI+13 Score

GRI+12 Score

GRI+13 Score

GRI+12 Score

Profile Disclosures 89.1% 90.3% 55.5% 53.0%

Organisational Profile 95.9% 92.9% 77.4% 73.0%

Report Parameters 84.3% 72.5% 31.5% 25.6%

Governance. Commitments. and Engagement 77.8% 76.2% 48.0% 37.5%

Disclosures on Management Approach (DMAs) 53.5% 42.0% 10.8% 2.8%

Economic 62.8% 66.8% 20.0% 23.7%

Environmental 36.8% 42.7% 4.0% 3.3%

Labour Practices and Decent Work 51.1% 58.8% 10.6% 13.1%

Human Rights 36.9% 35.1% 2.2% 3.2%

Society 48.7% 48.8% 6.9% 5.9%

Product Responsibility 42.5% 39.7% 1.9% 2.8%ALL INDICATORS 57.9% 58.0% 21.2% 19.0%All INDICATORS/ALL REPORTS 34.1% 29.0%

While experienced reporters such as Sasol, Eskom and Anglo American Platinum may not struggle with these indicators, it’s reasonable to expect that anyone starting to produce their first report may find the indicators somewhat of a challenge to adapt to their own organisational scenario. As such, and given that the support afforded by the GRI is not always deemed useful, the best advice one could give is to recommend that new reporters interrogate the work of those companies that are oft-respected for the quality of their reports.

Perhaps the best place to start is the ACCA’s annual awards for sustainability reporting. By identifying which reports are deemed ‘best in class’, new authors can short-cut their journey to effective reporting by reading what leaders have done.

Rates of Response to the GRI’s Energy, Emissions and Water Consumption IndicatorsNot unlike many other countries around the world, South Africa finds itself in a precarious balance between the economy and the environment. Water scarcity threatens not only agricultural output, but also the basic survival of communities throughout the country, while the supply of electricity to meet an ever-expanding demand is having significant impacts on our national carbon emissions tally. With carbon taxes looming on the horizon,

| GRI G3 Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings continued

Upon further scrutiny, it was interesting to note that the average GRI compliance score per sector rose significantly for all but two sectors since last year. While the Chemicals sector – AECI, Omnia Holdings and African Oxygen – dropped from 51.3% to 43.1%. the Software & Computers sector – Gijima, Business Connexion and Silverbridge – dropped from 34.3% to 31.8%. In all other cases, the average score rose, but none as much as the Hotel & Leisure sector – Wilderness, Phumelela Gaming & Leisure and Sun International – which skyrocketed from 39.9% to 85.2%, with all three companies making enormous strides in their reporting.

Overall, the uptake rate of the GRI Guidelines for the 2011 reporting period was just over 35%, with only the Household & Leisure Goods sector (4 companies) completely opting out of compliance. The fact that the NGO sector has achieved an opt-in compliance rating of 100% is a bit of a fallacy, in that NGOs are not required to opt in, and thus our population sample is strictly limited to the three NGOs we were aware of. However, it’s worth noting that the Health sector – four of five listed entities within the sector – has adopted the Guidelines en masse.

In the end, 194 South African companies were identified as being either ‘GRI reporters’ (128) or ‘near reporters’ (i.e., the 66 companies that are non-GRI but scored above the 25.3% threshold required for GRI compliance, if they’d only paid attention to the Guidelines when drafting their report). What excites me – the über-GRI-Geek – is that if each of these companies were to make the minimal effort required. South Africa would escalate its status as a confirmed leader in terms of transparency and accountability through sustainability reporting (194 would catapult South Africa ahead of Spain, and second only to the USA (with its many thousands of listed companies, compared to South Africa’s 400-ish).

Rates of Response to the GRI IndicatorsAs from last year’s research report – based on queries raised as a result of our first two research reports – we now provide detailed indictor-by-indicator response rates for each of the 127 GRI indicators. Appendix IV provides the indicator-specific responses, but it should be noted that some areas within the Guidelines continue to be more of a challenge for reporters than others. While GRI reporters

22

reasonable expectations for carbon footprint and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosure. Not only have 83 of the JSE’s top 100 companies participated in the Carbon Disclosure Projects’ voluntary reporting protocols. As discussed later in this report, of the 363 companies reviewed, a total of 114 companies (31.4%) offered any responses to EN16 (direct & indirect GHG emissions), while 55 companies provided responses to all five of the GRI’s energy consumption and carbon emissions indicators (EN3, EN4, EN16, EN17 and EN18). What’s of particular interest is the significant difference in reporting of energy and emissions for companies that have not yet adopted the GRI G3 Guidelines. Among the 235 non-GRI reporters, the average response rate for these five indicators was roughly 6.9%: far below reasonable expectations for companies that MUST report on how they are managing their impacts on climate change and a growing scarcity of energy supplies.

as well as the rapidly inflating cost of energy – both electricity and oil (i.e., petrol and diesel) – one might expect companies to be freely reporting to shareholders (set aside all other interested and affected stakeholders) about how well these costs are being managed in both the short and long-term. Given that these environmental concerns are heaped upon the numerous social challenges privy to a country with one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world (i.e., extremely high levels of income disparity, and the resultant social justice challenges), one might reasonably argue that the GRI Guidelines are precisely the blueprint South African companies need to ascertain how well they are managing their ability to confront energy consumption, carbon emissions and water consumption challenges. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case: at least not yet.

What may be of significant interest to researchers and practitioners alike is the fact that our research determined that South Africa has become somewhat of a leader in terms of

Response Rates for Key GRI G3 Indicators: Energy Consumption and Emissions2011 Response Rate 2010 Response Rate

GRI Non-GRI GRI Non-GRI

EN3 Direct energy consumption by primary energy source. 58.6% 6.6% 58.5% 5.7%

EN4 Indirect energy consumption by primary source. 62.9% 8.3% 56.5% 2.2%

EN16 Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight. 61.7% 10.9% 67.0% 3.3%

EN17 Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight. 34.8% 3.2% 43.0% 1.5%

EN18 Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved. 41.4% 5.5% 61.0% 8.9%

What’s even more worrying is that in a country deemed to be a “water scarce environment”, the quality of information being presented by companies is shockingly low. Even though the concept of reporting a “water footprint” is still a relatively new phenomenon, one would reasonably assume that companies would be far further ahead in reporting their water consumption patterns, and efforts to reduce consumption and/or recycle water.

However, only 30 GRI-reporting companies (8.3%) provided reasonable responses to the GRI’s three water indicators – EN8, EN9 and EN10 – while a further 15 (4.2%) provided partial responses. Among the 235 non-GRI reporters, the average response rate for these three indicators was roughly 3.7%: again, far below reasonable expectations for companies in South Africa.

Response Rates for Key GRI G3 Indicators: Water Consumption and Impacts2011 Response Rate 2010 Response Rate

GRI Non-GRI GRI Non-GRI

EN8 Total water withdrawal by source. 53.5% 6.6% 61.0% 3.3%

EN9 Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water. 33.2% 1.3% 32.0% 0.7%

EN10 Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused. 29.7% 3.2% 32.0% 3.3%

In summary, one must remember that the GRI Guidelines are not merely a tool for reporting, but rather a tool that can be used to identify gaps and/or weaknesses in systems and controls that should be in place to manage risks and/or opportunities. If nothing else, the paltry uptake on the above environmental indicators

should serve to prove that companies have not adopted the GRI Guidelines. In order enhance their ability to prove that they are prepared to mitigate the shifting environmental world around us, companies should adopt the Guidelines as a means for adhering to the adage, “that which is not measured is not managed”.

23

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

| Independent Third Party Assurance

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

From The Millennium Editionby Mike Fitzpatrick

Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic Right: # 9884 Wild Lips

© Mike Fitzpatrick Reproduced with permission

4 Repens Street, Heriotdale Telephone (011) 621 3300

Telefax (011) 626 3578 E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za

www.ultra-litho.co.za

understanding the art of printing

Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani,

Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran, Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest, Rory, Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile, Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, Dichakge, Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson,

856 reports (38.9%) of the 2 202 GRI-based reports recorded within the GRI’s online database* were assured by third parties, of which the vast majority (460, or 53.7% were Application Level A+ reports).

436 reports (34.1%) of the 1 279 reports recorded for the countries representing the ‘Top 10 reporting countries’ within the GRI’s database* were assured by third parties, of which 200 (45.9%, down from 56.7% last year) were assured by one or more of the Big 4 accounting firms, and 108 (24.8%, up from 14.3% last year) were assured according to AccountAbility’s AA1000AS standard.

PwC is the dominant player in the global assurance field, with 16% of the market in the top 10 countries (66 reports assured), with KPMG in second place at 12.7% (52 reports assured). EY and Deloitte fall far behind, with 8.3% (34 reports) and 5.1% (21 reports), respectively.

363 South African reports were reviewed by IRAS for this research report, of which 52 reports were found to have been assured. 29 (55.8%, down from 63.9% last year) were assured by one or more of the Big 4 accounting firms.

Having assured reports for 12 different clients (23.1% of all assured reports) IRAS retains its position as the number one assurance provider in South Africa. PwC is in second place with 11 engagements (21.1%), KPMG and PKF are in third place (eight reports or 15.4%), Deloitte is in fifth (seven reports or 13.5%) and EY has dropped to the bottom of the class, with only four reports (7.7%).

The assurance market has been set upon ferociously with PKF coming from nowhere to offer assurance to eight clients in the past reporting period, while the likes of ERM (two reports) and Nkonki (one report) have already assured reports. There are now 11 different ‘known assurers’ in the South African market (see our database of ‘Other Sustainability Reporting Practitioners’ for details).

16 of the assured reports (30.8%) in South Africa (24.8% of the assured reports in the top 10 reporting countries) were assured using AccountAbility’s AA1000AS Assurance Standard, demonstrating a significant rise in awareness and application of the standard. Even the Big 4 accountancies have adopted the standard, apparently in response to criticism over their own ‘accountancy focused’ ISAE 3000 standard.

The average GRI compliance score for assured reports was 71.9% whereas the average for non-assured reports was 51.1%. The lowest score for an assured report was 29.6%, barely above the minimum score required for GRI compliance (25.3%). The lowest score for a non-assured GRI-based report was 22.9% (thus, ‘Non-Compliant’).

Assurance has not necessarily guaranteed GRI compliance, although it would seem an obvious thing for the assurance provider to check. Two companies reported an A+ and but were deemed ‘Non-Compliant’, while another one errantly reported a B+. One company even reported a GRI-checked application level, but was found to be ‘Non-Compliant’, where non-compliance is defined as a report that has not adequately met the application level requirements.

Independent Third Party AssuranceGiven that stakeholders generally don’t trust what companies disclose in their annual reports, and given that stakeholders more specifically interested in matters of social and/or environmental responsibility are even more skeptical of companies’ public assertions, the merits of Independent Third Party Assurance (ITPA) have been on the rise over the past few years. Not only has there been a rise of companies seeking assurance of their own accord, but governments and legislators have started to demand assurance for non-financial disclosures in annual reports. France has recently legislated that ITPA over sustainability information is a requirement, while in South Africa, ITPA is a recommendation within King III.

Chapter 9 of King III (Integrated Reporting and Disclosure) clearly states that all companies ought to ensure that their sustainability reports are assured, particularly within the following two principles:

9.1 The board should ensure the integrity of the company’s integrated report (also cited as 2.12 in Chapter 2 on Boards and Directors); and,

9.3 Sustainability reporting and disclosure should be independently assured.

Although it is widely accepted that the ultimate indicator of sustainability-related transparency and accountability is whether or not a report has been afforded independent third party assurance (ITPA), the problem remains that there is a lack of clarity around what ‘independently assured’ means, who is best placed to offer such assurance, where adequate skills and experience might reside, and what form an assurance engagement can take (i.e., under what relevant standards). This is becoming even more problematic as new entrants into the space are adopting their own concepts regarding what assurance ought to look like, with some going so far as to rubber stamp reports for as little as R20 000, as a “value-added service” linked to the financial audit. Yeah right, “value-added”?

Over the past few years, the uptake of ITPA has grown in prominence, both in terms of who is offering assurance, and the forms in which it is offered, and attention is starting to be paid to

whether or not the assurance actually adds value to the reporting process and/or to the final outcomes shared with stakeholders. While earlier reports were typically rewarded based on whether or not an assurance opinion has been sought, and therefore a statement is included, the trend has been rapidly moving towards whether or not the statement of assurance is meaningful. Even with reporters fighting to minimise the total page length of their reports (including PwC’s now notorious one-pagers), the length of the assurance statement seems to have settled at two pages, with the content of the statement typically offering an opinion over whether the content of the report adequately reflects the materiality, accuracy, consistency, completeness and/or reliability expectations of the reporting entity’s key stakeholders. Granted, little to no criticism has been leveled at assurance providers, or questions raised about the quality and/or extent of the assurance provided, but more knowledgeable sustainability report reviewers and/or committed stakeholders are beginning to change that.

* The GRI’s stats have been updated using the information found during our research.

Independent Third Party Assurance

Overview of the main types of assuranceISAE 3000 The accounting profession’s mandatory standard

for “engagements other than financial audits”. Although useful in ensuring consistency within both the approach to the assurance engagement, and the form of the assurance statement, ISAE 3000 has been frequently criticised for creating barriers to offering an assurance opinion that an average stakeholder can comprehend.

AA1000AS The assurance standard developed by AccountAbility (UK) to offer reporters not only a meaningful alternative to the accounting profession’s ISAE 3000, but also to offer stakeholders a more comprehensive assurance engagement. Increasingly, the accounting firms are coupling AA1000AS to ISAE 3000 in order to meet growing stakeholder demand for meaningful assurance.

‘Non-Aligned’ All other assurance engagements, which currently makes up for more than 40% of all assurance engagements, which are not assured relative to a local and/or internationally recognised standard (noting that an in-house methodology is not necessarily a “standard”).

26

Perhaps this is how News of the World managed their internal controls over information gathering, but it’s not of particular use to readers of reports.

Readers need some form of verification, confirmation, or comfort that somebody has checked the report and can comment about whether or not the company is being fair and factual in the assertions they make. They want to know that the data is reasonably collected, collated and reported without error or omission. They also want to know that the company is giving a fair account of the issues that are deemed ‘most material’, based not only on what the company believes to be ‘most material’, but on what the company’s key stakeholders believe. Ultimately, they want to know:

• On what basis was the assurance provider deemed competent and/or independent?

• What within the report was checked, by whom, and where?

• What did the assurance provider uncover during the assurance process (i.e., the “findings”)?

• What recommendations for improvement did the assurance provider identify?

Historically, the “Big 4” accountancy firms – Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC – have dominated the assurance space, and have been restricted in terms of their assurance scope, methodologies and assurance statements by their industry regulated assurance standard: ISAE 3000. Deemed by many to offer little to no “value-add”, the assurance statements typically generated by the accountancies have appeared to be more focused on protecting the accountants than offering meaningful insight into the validity of the reports they purport to assure. Most often, they have been widely criticised for their use of “the double negative”:

“Nothing has come to our attention to lead us to believe that the information contained herein is not correct.”

Brilliant!

This is the equivalent of saying,

“At huge expense to the reporting company, we sat in lawn chairs outside their building for two weeks, and because nobody came to tell us that something was wrong, we must assume that everything is OK.”

Within the top 10 reporting countries, the presence of AA1000AS assured reports, and ISAE 3000 & AA1000AS assured reports, has been on the rise. For example, all three of the EY assured reports in the UK have cited both standards, while five of the Big 4 assured reports in South Africa have adopted this approach.

At 40.6% (up from 36.0% last year), the rate of assurance uptake in South Africa has jumped well ahead of the 34.1% rate among the top 10 reporting countries identified in the GRI’s database (down significantly from 41.4% last year, but likely a function of incomplete and/or inadequate data within the GRI’s database).

Although a step in the right direction, SA’s assurance uptake rate is still lagging well behind the rates identified for both Spain (56.6%), and Sweden (50.4%).

However, it’s the hell draggers in the USA that are still trying to figure who can, or who can’t, provide assurance. Not only is there an assurance uptake rate of only 10.4% (27 of 231 reports) in the US, and the Big 4 only account for five (18.5%) of those engagements. Perhaps not all that surprising is the fact that China has a comparably low assurance uptake rate, 16.8% of ‘known reports’, with the Big 4 providing assurance over only two reports (7.4%).

As identified in our previous research reports, the most intriguing trend in assurance is not necessarily related to ‘who’s getting assurance’, but rather ‘who’s giving it’. As mentioned above, the Big 4 accounting firms continue to play a dominant role in the provision of ITPA over sustainability reports, but their grip on the market appears to be slipping. Not only have we – at IRAS – taken the number one position in terms of assurance clients, but the ‘Tier 2’ accountancies such as PKF, BDO and Grant Thornton have entered the fray. Others to enter include ERM, Assuredex, Nkonki and Inyebo (the latter two being unknown entities at this stage).

Assurance Uptake per Country

Country# of GRI Reports # Assured % Assured

# Assured by Big 4

% Assured by Big 4

# Assured via ISAE 3000

% Assured via ISAE 3000

# Assured via AA1000AS

% Assured via AA1000AS Largest assurance provider

USA 231 27 10.4 5 18.5 6 22.2 6 22.2 Deloitte/Two Tomorrows

Spain 166 94 56.6 33 35.1 38 40.4 24 25.5 PwC

China 161 27 16.8 2 7.4 2 7.4 11 40.7 SGS

South Africa 128 52 40.6 29 55.8 38 73.1 16 30.8 IRAS (SustainabilityServices.co.za)

Sweden 125 63 50.4 41 65.1 43 68.3 4 6.3 KPMG

Brazil 119 38 31.9 17 44.7 15 39.5 10 26.3 BSD Consulting

Germany 92 37 40.2 24 64.9 24 64.9 3 8.1 PwC

Australia 91 37 40.7 13 35.1 15 40.5 19 51.4 Net Balance

Netherlands 97 33 34.0 24 72.7 24 72.7 1 3.0 KPMG

UK 69 28 40.6 12 42.9 8 28.6 14 50.0 PwCTop 10 Total 1 279 436 34.1 200 45.9 213 48.9 108 24.8

• What conclusions did the assurance provider come to with respect to the believability of the report?

Unfortunately, ISAE 3000 does not – at least not adequately – address all of these requirements in an effective manner. Most importantly, ISAE 3000 does not require the assurance provider to assess how well the company has defined its most material issues, and/or how well the report reflects reasonable feedback on these “MMIs”. As a result, there have been two processes occurring, in parallel, in the world of assurance:

1. The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) released an exposure draft of a revised version of ISAE 3000, and is planning to not only revise the standard, but to potentially open it up to non-accountants.

2. The accountancies have identified a need to change faster than IFAC can allow, and have adopted a policy of applying AccountAbility’s AA1000AS assurance standard over and above ISAE 3000 (on the same engagement). Although this hasn’t yet changed the frequency of ‘double negatives’, it has at least offered commentary on the principles of inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness.

27

| Independent Third Party Assurance continued

Assurance Providers in SA

Assurance ProviderNumber of

engagements ISAE 3000AA 1000

Type IAA 1000

Type IIISAE 3000 & AA1000 Non-Aligned

IRAS* 12 4 5 3

PwC 10 9 1

PKF 8 8

KPMG 7 5 1 1

Deloitte 6 6

EY 3 3

ERM 2 1 1

Nkonki 1 1

PwC/EY 1 1

KPMG/Deloitte 1 1

Maplecroft/KPMG 1 1 Total 52 33 4 7 5 3

* IRAS, or ‘Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services’, was formerly known as ‘SustainabilityServices.co.za’

2. Because they already seek an audit opinion over their financials from the Big 4;

3. Because the Big 4 firms come with automatic brand recognition locally and internationally; and,

4. Because the Big 4 firms have resources placed all over the world, thereby reducing the need to emit carbon via flights in order to measure carbon from operations.

However, recent criticism over the role the Big 4 was perceived to have played in the economic meltdown has spilled over into the debate over who ought to provide sustainability assurance. There is a general assumption that the Big 4 are too intrinsically connected to their clients to be deemed “independent”, and therefore are not – Chinese walls or not – in a position to offer a meaningful assurance opinion. As was noted in last year’s research report, the fact that the Big 4 firms manage over 90% of the audits of the large listed companies, is a concern second only to the fact that the average large company rotates their auditors once in every 48 years (the US’s Fortune 500 companies), which smacks of a lack of independence. By being the auditor of a company for any period longer than six years, the service provider’s independence tends to give way to familiarity, if not collegiality, which does little to offer anything close to ‘meaningful assurance’ to external stakeholders. The auditor is, in most respects, checking their friend’s homework, which is far from an impartial opinion.

Although no formal rules exist and/or apply at this stage, it is our own opinion at IRAS that companies ought to rotate their assurance provider after no longer than three to four years, or risk diminishing the value-add supplied by the assurance provider

to either the company or their stakeholders. Both Anglo American Platinum and Sasol regularly put their assurance out to tender, with change occurring every three to five years.

Taking a major step back, it should be clearly stated that ITPA refers to the practice of reviewing a company’s Sustainability Report, or sustainability section within an Integrated Annual Report, and training in this field, aside from project-based experiential learning, has been scarce. While the practice of ITPA has become increasingly more formalised over the past 13 years, the lack of appropriate training has only recently been developed.

In partnership with AccountAbility, a UK-based not-for-profit network that has established standards for stakeholder engagement and assurance (AA1000SES and AA1000AS), IRAS established the first training course for budding Certified Sustainability Assurance Practitioners (CSAP) in 2009, and has run 5-day courses biannually since then. Although a course has already been offered in March of this year, a second course is being offered in October due to demand (email info@iras.co.za for more information).

In developing the standards and CSAP accreditation process, AccountAbility (www.accountability.org) has attempted to create formal structures around what has been a relatively diverse set of provider-specific approaches to assurance. However, the past 13 years of GRI-based reporting has allowed for the filtration of three standard types of assurance: Content-Based Assurance; Assertion-Based Assurance; and, Indicator-Based Assurance.

Content-Based Assurance (CBA)CBA refers to one of the simplest forms of assurance, whereby an assurance provider is expected to review the content of a sustainability report and provide an opinion over whether or not the report reasonably reflects the information expectations of the reporting entity’s key stakeholders.

Assertion-Based Assurance (ABA)ABA refers to a rather complex and time-consuming form of assurance, whereby an assurance provider is expected to dissect the content of a sustainability report into specific assertions (e.g., “We respect all human rights”) and to provide an opinion over whether or not each report assertion can be reasonably proved, either by evidence supplied within the report, or through additional information supplied by the reporting entity.

Indicator-Based Assurance (IBA)IBA refers to the most common form of assurance sought by mining companies and others with high social and/or environmental risk levels. IBA requires an assurance provider to identify and select a set of high priority sustainability indicators, and to research the accuracy, consistency, completeness and reliability of the data reported relative to each of these indicators. The assurance provider

Although there has been a significant jump in the number of assurance providers over the past couple of years – to where reporters now sit with the option of choosing from a pool of 11 different companies – there is still an ongoing lack of assurance skills available in South Africa. Part of the issue appears to be a desire to shift away from the Big 4, for reasons either of cost or a shallow experience base, with too little demonstrated capacity to add value through the process. Even within the Big 4 there appears to be an inability to attract and retain people with sufficient real world experience, and who can therefore understand what reporters must go through to produce their reports. Several companies have complained that the assurance teams they are sent are “too young… too inexperienced… and too focused on the numbers, and not on what is really material”. One need only look at the ‘shared engagements’, where companies have had to employ assurance teams from two different assurance providers (i.e., PwC + EY, KPMG + Deloitte and KPMG + Maplecroft) to note that companies are not able to get the value they’re looking for from one supplier. This is either a capacity issue, an independence issue, or an approach issue (i.e., companies want the audit rigor of the Big 4, but the value-adding opinion of someone like Maplecroft). The current challenge is therefore for companies to effectively discern who is best placed to provide assurance services that meet their needs, as well as those of their stakeholders.

The default answer for many of the larger listed companies will continue to be the Big 4 for the following reasons:

1. Because of the relationship between the accounting firms and the audit committees who are tasked with appointing them (i.e., most audit committee members within larger companies are ex-Big 4 accountants);

28

Uptake of AA1000AS in South AfricaAlthough its uptake has been relatively slow in South Africa, the application of AccountAbility’s AA1000AS assurance standard has started to grow in the last few years. Whereas only six reports were found to have been assured in accordance with AA1000AS in 2009, of which four reports were assured by our own team, this last year’s research identified 12 separate reports that had been assured using either AA1000AS (seven reports), or AA1000AS in combination with ISAE 3000 (five reports). We counted 16 AA1000AS assured reports this year, of which five were assured by the Big 4 using a combination of AA1000AS and ISAE 3000.

In short, the key differences between AA1000S and ISAE 3000 are as follows:

1. Whereas ISAE 3000 restricts the assurance statement to ‘negative language’, including the oft-ridiculed double negative, AA1000AS expects the assurance provider to provide a clear discourse on the assurance provider’s findings, conclusions and recommendations. Rather than the statement being structured to protect the assurer, as in the case of ISAE 3000, the AA1000AS statement is structured to clearly explain what was done, what was found, and what the company ought to do in the future. In order for the assurance statement to be accepted by AccountAbility as having met their standards, the statement must undergo a 15-point compliance check, for such things as clear findings, recommendations and conclusions.

2. Whereas ISAE 3000 focuses on the quality of sampled data – accuracy, completeness, consistency and reliability – AA1000AS focuses on the processes behind reporting, including whether or not the company has clear inclusivity processes for defining who their most important stakeholders are (and engaging them), for defining materiality (and managing the most material issues), and responsiveness processes for communicating what the most significant stakeholders want to know about the most significant/material issues. In an AA1000AS Type II assurance engagement, the review of principles is coupled with the same sort of data testing as one would expect from an ISAE 3000 engagement, with the exception that the resultant statement must be phrased using ‘positive language’.

In closing, it should be noted that any company seeking ITPA should consider investigating the merits of applying AA1000AS in their assurance engagement, regardless of who their assurance provider might be. Without AA1000AS it’s virtually impossible for stakeholders to understand whether or not the content of the report is appropriate relative to the reporting entity’s most material issues, including the most material societal issues that may have a significant impact on the company’s activities.

is expected to review the chain of evidence (i.e., systems and processes employed to collect, collate and report data) for each key indicator and provide an opinion over whether or not the indicator-specific data contained within the report is reliable.

AccountAbility, in attempting to address concerns about the usefulness and quality of assurance engagements, launched its updated Assurance Standard (AA1000AS) in 2009, offering specific guidance regarding four specific types of assurance: Type 1 Moderate; Type 1 Reasonable; Type 2 Moderate; and, Type 2 Reasonable.

Type 1 Assurance (T1A)T1A refers to a form of assurance similar to that of CBA, whereby an assurance provider is expected to review the content of a sustainability report and provide an opinion over whether or not the report reasonably reflects the information expectations of the reporting entity’s key stakeholders. The assurance provider is expected to assess the degree to which the reporting entity has adhered to AccountAbility’s principles of ‘Inclusivity’ (whether all of the reporting entity’s key stakeholders have been engaged), ‘Materiality’ (whether the reporting entity has identified and prioritised its more significant sustainability risks and/or opportunities) and ‘Responsiveness’ (whether the reporting entity has adequately considered the material concerns of its key stakeholders and offered a reasonable discussion to meet their information expectations).

The difference between ‘Moderate’ and ‘Reasonable’ assurance is the extent to which the assurance provider has tested the sustainability reporting systems and processes to provide an opinion. Most notably, ‘Reasonable’ assurance would require that stakeholders be actively engaged as part of the assurance process to test the validity of the reporting entity’s claims around the three reporting principles: inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness.

Type 2 Assurance (T2A)T2A refers to a much more comprehensive form of assurance, similar to that of IBA, whereby an assurance provider is expected to meet the assurance expectations of T1A, and to test the accuracy, consistency, completeness and reliability of data reported relative to a selection of significant sustainability indicators. As with IBA, the assurance provider is expected to review the chain of evidence (i.e., systems and processes employed to collect, collate and report data) for each key indicator and provide an opinion over whether or not the indicator specific data contained within the report is reliable.

The difference between ‘Moderate’ and ‘Reasonable’ T2A is the extent to which data is tested. Rather than testing a small sample of data for ‘Moderate’ assurance, the assurance provider must test enough of the available data in order to provide an opinion over whether or not the reported data is accurate, consistent, complete and reliable.

GREEN TALENTSUSTAINABILITY CAREERS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUTURES

HUMAN CAPITAL NEEDEDThe reality of creating sustainable futures is becoming a main stream focus and as a result the green economy is gaining traction.

Human or social capital is fast becoming the foundation of sustainable businesses.

Green Talent was established in 2011 to respond to the growing need for sustainability professionals in the green economy.

Our role is to facilitate the development of a skilled workforce that is ready to meet the demands of the emerging green/low carbon economy in Africa. We do this through our Sustainability Career Centre that provides a voice for industry leaders, professionals and course providers to communicate sustainability skills, vacancy offerings, education and training opportunities.

CONTACT US

Cell +27 (0)72 797 1299 elize@greentalent.co.zawww.greentalent.co.za

It’s about the people!

29

www.credit360.com

dark blue

light blue

mid blue

teal

grey blue

compliance

supply chain

energy

csr

enviro

Over 100 leading companies like Bidvest, Barclays, Philips and Staples use our solutions to manage their sustainability data. Find out more about what we do, how we do it and who we’re already doing it for, visit

credit360 is a specialist provider of sustainability software. That means you can rely on us to manage your sustainability data and help take your company where you want to be. It’s no wonder our customers consistently win awards for their sustainability reporting – and we continue to win awards as a supplier in our industry.

Whatever sustainability means to your organisation, from carbon reporting to donations tracking, our system provides an efficient, integrated and transparent way to gather and manage data. We help you collect information, analyse and interpret it, and then communicate it to all your different stakeholders.

Drive sustainability performance forward in your businessC

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

CRedit360 A4 ad AW.pdf 28/6/12 17:04:08

10 TIPS to Achieve Excellence in Integrated Sustainability Reportingwww.credit360.com

dark blue

light blue

mid blue

teal

grey blue

compliance

supply chain

energy

csr

enviro

Over 100 leading companies like Bidvest, Barclays, Philips and Staples use our solutions to manage their sustainability data. Find out more about what we do, how we do it and who we’re already doing it for, visit

credit360 is a specialist provider of sustainability software. That means you can rely on us to manage your sustainability data and help take your company where you want to be. It’s no wonder our customers consistently win awards for their sustainability reporting – and we continue to win awards as a supplier in our industry.

Whatever sustainability means to your organisation, from carbon reporting to donations tracking, our system provides an efficient, integrated and transparent way to gather and manage data. We help you collect information, analyse and interpret it, and then communicate it to all your different stakeholders.

Drive sustainability performance forward in your businessC

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

CRedit360 A4 ad AW.pdf 28/6/12 17:04:08

The value is in the process… not the report!

The Integrated Annual Report should not be the objective, but rather a document that seeks to explain performance against objectives. It should be a milestone within a cyclical process of introspection and process improvement, and should be a well-scribed summary of the company’s ability to meet its objectives during the reporting period. It should be somewhat of a regurgitation of outcomes of key discussions the company has had with its most significant stakeholders over the reporting period, including a free and frank discourse about how engaging stakeholders has led to policy, procedures and/or strategic change. It should be an effective summary of the direction the company is taking in the future, and how it plans to get there.

In developing an effective sustainability report, one should at least consider the following unsolicited advice…

1 Introduce yourself! *NEWUntil such time as the GRI publishes the next version of its Guidelines – the “G4”, expected to be launched at next year’s GRI Conference (May 2013) – I will continue to point out that the single-most useless GRI indicator is:

2.1 Name of the Organisation

Granted, it is understood that this is required – in the context of idiot-proofing the Guidelines – for those companies that are registered under one name, yet trading under another, but it’s safe to assume that a company would find it difficult to produce a report without at least once mentioning its name. Nonetheless, it is not safe to assume that companies will remember to explain who they are and/or what they do.

Far too often, companies waffle on about what great work they are doing, why everyone else is to blame for its shortcomings, and how they intend to be the next Apple in the post-Jobsian era, but fail to explain what they actually do in a clear and concise manner. In many cases, its difficult to understand what industry sector they actually fall under and/or whether they ‘make anything’, or simply invest in companies that do so. As a result, it can be extremely difficult to assess whether or not a company is a “going concern” as a result of mere dumb luck, or if there is a clear strategy that is being managed in an effective and controlled manner.

For a report to be truly effective, the introduction to the report should offer a clear understanding of what they do, where they do it, as well as what their core products and services are.

• While an “Annual Report” almost exclusively focuses on financial performance, with little more than a set of statutory annual financial statements, and an introduction to the company and its governance, an “Integrated Annual Report” seeks to provide a summary of the company’s “non-financial performance” (remembering that there’s no such thing as “non-financial” in business).

• Whereas an “Annual Report” is a review of the company’s historical performance, an “Integrated Annual Report” is expected to give an indication of where the company is headed, and how it plans to get there (i.e., forward looking versus the rear view mirror approach).

• Whereas an “Annual Report” avoids – almost at all costs – making predictions about future performance and/or the setting of targets, target-setting is a fundamental expectation of an “Integrated Annual Report”, as is the need to report back on previously stated targets (i.e., setting the bar and reporting upon commitments).

Ultimately, an effective report is the one that clearly defines a company’s ‘Most Material Issues’ (MMIs), explains how those MMIs were identified (i.e., the materiality process), provides a simple, meaningful and comparable discussion about the company’s ability to manage these issues, and then offers an equally meaningful discussion about how the company plans to manage the issues moving forward. A report should not take the form of what we all came to expect from an Annual Report, which is all but irrelevant by the time the report is produced. Rather, an effective integrated annual report should offer a comprehensive discourse around what a company does, what it plans to do, and how it plans to do what it intends to do: including how it intends to monitor and manage its MMIs.

One should not assume that MMIs must be limited to risks, but rather all issues that might have a significant impact on the company’s short and long-term success. These could be risks, but almost always include opportunities. They will most certainly be things that have an impact on the company, be it positive or negative, and they may very well be ways in which the company has an impact on others (e.g., the communities in which it operates, the physical/natural environment, etc.).

In writing a sustainability report, one must remember what may very well be the cardinal rule of integrated sustainability reporting:

Having played in the sustainability reporting and assurance space, in one way or another, for the better part of the past 13 years, I – Michael H. Rea, the primary author of this report – have come to believe that I might know a thing or two about what should be reasonably expected from a sustainability report (or the sustainability content within an Integrated Annual Report). However, the closer I feel I’m getting to having “the answers”, the closer I may only be to having “some of the questions”. Nonetheless, I have revisited the list of “10 tips” included in the past two versions of this research report, and have updated them to reflect discussions I’ve had with my team and our clients over the past year.

Some of my preferred ‘tips’ are predicated on historical and/or current ‘reporting principles’, particularly as set out by the GRI and AccountAbility, but others stem from the discussions and debates I’ve been privy to over the past few years. Others have come from the frustration that arises having to endure the painful challenge of evaluating reports that should never have been published. In fact, I often sum up my advice to companies with the following ten suggestions:

1. Introduce yourself!2. Explain your “materiality process”!3. “Integrate” does not necessarily mean “combine”!4. Let the data tell the story!5. Ask and answer the ‘So what?’ question!6. Tick the boxes later!7. An ‘A’ is not necessarily better than a ‘C’!8. Neutrality works!9. Seek meaningful assurance!10. If you’re gonna link it, do it right!

Perhaps it’s important to first offer a simplistic overview of the main differences between “Annual Reports” and “Integrated Annual Reports”. These include:

This section has been updated from last year’s research report. Some 10 tips have been labelled “NEW”, while others have been labelled “UPDATED”… for obvious reasons.

NOTE

10 TIps to Achieve Excellence in Integrated Sustainability Reporting

32

Here’s the challenge of materiality: talk to everyone…listen to those who have a valid point…and determine what’s material not only on what the Board talks about, but also on what the world in which the company operates in talks about. Do not assume that the Board understands the risks and/or opportunities linked to a global shift to a low carbon economy. Rather, use the reporting process – inclusive of effective stakeholder engagement – as a mechanism for informing the Board about what ought to be considered ‘material’.

3 “Integrate” does not necessarily mean “combine”! *UPDATED

As was discussed in greater detail in last year’s version of this research report, there is a fundamental difference between ‘integrated reporting’ and ‘the integrated report’. The former is the process by which companies ensure that sustainability is woven into the fabric of the business, from vision, mission and values all the way through to strategy and operational tactics. The latter is the document that is produced at the end of the financial period to update stakeholders on not only the historical performance of the organisation, but also the outlook and performance targets for the near, mid and long-term future of the company.

An integrated report is to be written in a manner that will be able to clearly demonstrate how environmental, social and governance matters are managed within the organisation, including, for example:

• What information is managed under the watchful eye of the Board and/or its committees?

• What formalised policies, procedures and systems are deployed to monitor and measure progress against key performance indicators?

• What assurance procedures are in place to test controls over the company’s most material issues…how often, by whom (i.e., internal or external assurance providers), and under the watchful eye of what Board/Committee/Executive function?

• What stakeholders are engaged, for what reason, how frequently, in what format, and what has resulted from that engagement (i.e., has stakeholder engagement had an impact on the strategies and/or tactics of the business)?

An integrated report does not, however, need to be weighed down by reams of statutory financial statements that many stakeholders cannot interpret, nor does it need to include an endless photo-laden rant about the self-proclaimed effectiveness of community development projects (i.e., the poverty pornography I love to talk about).

Thus, the authors of an ‘integrated report’ should not attempt to produce a 400-page report that combines the statutory financial statements and the comprehensive sustainability report, but should shoot for a 60 to 80 page summary report. Sasol’s most recent report, as well as those of the likes of Altron, Vodacom and Massmart are strong examples of reports that have been whittled down from the door stops of old, to become much more

2 Explain your materiality process! *NEW(For those companies errantly seeking to generate an Integrated Annual Report that scores a high near-useless ‘GRI Compliance Score’ such as those we disclose within this research report, here’s the only piece of advice you’re likely interested in…)

As per the GRI’s Guidelines, a “reasonable response” to any of the 127 indicators can be as simple as stating – usually within a comprehensive GRI Index Table – the following:

“Based on our materiality assessment, this indicator has been deemed ‘not material’ and therefore we do not report on it.” (or something to that effect).

The trick here is that you must first define your materiality process, which requires explaining how the company arrives at a series of indicators and/or issues that are important for the company to discuss within its reports. In most cases, this tends to occur as a function of the Risk and/or Audit Committee’s establishment of a ‘Risk Register’, but this does not necessarily mean that this is adequate. Rather, for the company to come up with a truly comprehensive list of ‘most material issues’, there must be some mechanism for stakeholder commentary and/or concern to influence the company’s understanding of what is…or is not…“material”, and thus what should be discussed within its reports.

In a recent JSE gathering of what was called the “Big 4 ½” (i.e., Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC and Grant Thornton…the ½), a member of the audience asked the oft-posed question of “How does one know what is material?”, to which the representative of Deloitte asserted (albeit paraphrased), “If it’s not something the Board is talking about, then it’s not material.”

Interesting!

This presupposes that the Board is made up of people who actually pay attention to the world around them and/or that anyone actually listens to the Board. It assumes that the Board understands that business has changed and/or that the world of business isn’t as insulated from social unrest as it might once have been. It also assumes that the Board has joined the information age, let alone a world quickly becoming dominated by the rapid fire impacts of social media.

Consider Brait, the investment company that was chaired by Mervyn King – affectionately referred to (at least by me) as “the King of King” (not to be confused with “the King of Kings”) – and the company that not only failed to get onto the first King-based JSE SRI Index for failure to interpret King effectively, but that also continues to produce an Annual Report that is not aligned to the GRI Guidelines and/or King III. How is it that Brait could have been chaired by King – who recently stepped down from his chairmanship of the GRI, and who now chairs the International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) – without listening to the advice he sells to everyone else willing to attend an over-priced SAICA event?

SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMPANIES

Audit • Advisory • Tax

Sustainable development creates value for customers, investors and the environment.

Our clients respect us for our specialist sustainability skills. Skills that help them build credibility and establish trust with stakeholders. Through our dedicated sustainability services team, we provide independent, third party assurance on the performance of a company’s sustainability strategy. We assess business processes systems and controls in place relating to sustainability objectives, stakeholder engagement, information gathering and reporting, and best practice benchmarking. We then recommend areas for improvement. Independent third party assurance of your sustainability report provides the added comfort your stakeholders, investors and members of the public need to make up their minds about your business practices and commitment to not only the communities within which you work, but the world as a whole.

Sustainable communities need sustainable businesses.

Contact Ursula van Eck on +27 10 060 5068 today to see how we can help you.

www.bdo.co.za

33

wasting massive volumes of water for an unknown period of time. Furthermore, the reduction in water consumption should be taken to its logical end, ultimately stating how this might impact on the current and/or future financial performance of the company, such as whether an investment in low-flow technologies will protect the company against forecasted hikes in the cost of water.

6 Tick the boxes later! *UPDATEDAlthough some might argue that there have been many, the first problem that GRI Guidelines created was the fact that companies have frequently fallen into a compliance trap. They believe that in order to apply the GRI Guidelines, the company must be able to tick as many of the boxes as possible, and if not, they must avoid producing a report that mentions adoption and/or application of the Guidelines. What they have overlooked is the principle of “materiality”.

One must remember that the GRI has not produced a prescriptive text that is applicable in its entirety to ALL reporting entities. Rather, the Guidelines are a reasonable set of indicators that can be applied in part, or in whole, to companies, NGOs, public institutions and anyone else seeking to produce a comparable sustainability report. Within the guidance around the Guidelines, the GRI has provided clear instructions about ensuring that the reporting entity determines the subject matter that is most material to the organisation, and to produce a report that focuses almost exclusively on only those issues. In fact, the GRI’s guidance indicates that when companies attempt to produce a sustainability report that meets their Application Level A requirements, the reporter should be mindful of the need to adhere to the materiality principle. Thus, a response of ‘not material to our company’ is a reasonable response to an indicator (as long as the reporting entity can clearly define their processes for determining materiality, and therefore justify the ‘not material’ assertion).

A statement that water consumption per unit of production should always be explained in terms of whether the company has invested in water recycling systems, implemented less water-dependent production methods, or identified a prior leak that was

manageable summary reports, with comprehensive supporting documentation available in other reports and/or on the web.

A well-written and effectively designed report offers stakeholders a meaningful interpretation of the company’s financial performance in the context of how well environmental, social and governance matters are managed in concert.

4 Let the data tell the story! *UPDATEDIf you’re attempting to write an Integrated Annual Report and are not a numbers geek, you have three choices: become one, find one in your company, or rent one!

Truth is, an excellent author can twist words to tell any story, but not always the right story, whereas a numbers geek may not be as eloquent, but their numbers will always tell the truth!

For years, I have witnessed numerous reports getting to the final stages of a misguided production process, when the data tables are finally ready to be plotted within an otherwise “complete” report. Graphs are generated and inserted, yet no link is made between the data and the text, often resulting in paragraphs that tell a wonderful story about how the company has – for example – invested heavily in improving the overall health and safety of workers, while an accompanying graph shows a sharp increase in work-related injuries.

As much as I might argue that accountants are not necessarily the best people to measure sustainability, I have to admit that my own training was largely influenced by seven years of earning and learning at PwC and KPMG. Thus, it would be disingenuous of me not to publicly assert that accountants taught me that ‘numbers tell stories’, and that effective data management is critical to business success. Unfortunately, this has only recently extended beyond financial data, and into the realm of social and environmental performance reporting (for all but the handful of South African companies that have been measuring “non-financial performance” for several years…such as Anglo American Platinum and Sasol).

Typically, sustainability report authors begin the reporting process long before they have usable performance data to work with. They make assumptions about performance, and then hope to weave year-end data into the stories they have attempted to tell. In many cases this results in either a complete absence of data, or an unmistakable disconnect between the data reported and the discourse around the issue.

Ultimately, a report should provide a combination of ‘current data’ (i.e., performance data from the reporting period), historical or ‘trend data’ (e.g., 3 to 5-year history of performance data for the specific indicator), benchmark or ‘comparable data’ (i.e., data from other companies, preferably industry or sector peers), and a meaningful projection of future trends. Once the data has been presented, the author should then offer a clear, concise and intelligent analysis of the data, interpreting trends and anomalies, and explaining the following:

• Sources of data;

• Weaknesses in the data collection, collation and/or reporting processes (where applicable);

• Re-statements of previously reported data, where errors might have been identified;

• Identification of trends and anomalies within the data, as well as their root causes; and,

• Any future changes to data systems or processes.

Reasonability testing of data should support graphs, wherever possible, and include an explanation of why a specific anomaly might have occurred. For example, a spike in water consumption ought to be contextualised relative to production figures, in that it might make sense for a significant spike in water consumption IF there was a significant spike in total production (assuming that production is directly correlated to water consumption). If this anomaly cannot be deemed ‘reasonable’, an explanation of what led to the spike should be offered and/or a commitment to rectifying whatever latent problems may yet exist.

5 Ask and answer the ‘So what?’ question! *UPDATEDA common weakness in sustainability reports – or the sustainability sections within integrated annual reports – is that authors do not appear to apply their minds to predicting the reader’s ability to interpret information, or to predicting how a reader’s interpretation might lead to different conclusions than intended. As such, one must consider that it is the role of the author to predict, and then answer, any possible questions raised by information presented within the report. Assume nothing…explain everything!

In some cases, readers are left hanging on data that is neither explained, nor contextualised. It is assumed that the reader can interpret the data and come to a reasonable conclusion about the point the author intends to make, or to assume what has led to a specific trend or anomaly within data. On the one hand, this may suggest that the author does not necessarily understand the data, but the bigger concern is that readers are left to define their own errant conclusions.

Thus, it is critically important for any assertion, be it a set of data or a worded statement, to be fully explained in the context of ‘So what?’

For example, when providing water consumption data (i.e., the total volume of water consumed), it’s important to ensure that year-on-year trend data is supplied, preferably a three-year minimum, that trends and/or anomalies are explained, and that the consumption is contextualised in terms of either a unit of production or head count. A volume in and of itself does not indicate whether the company is an efficient consumer of water. Until the volume is compared against a unit of production (e.g., litres per unit of production), and a year-on-year trend can be displayed, the indicator does little to explain the company’s sustainability performance. Moreover, the consumption should be explained by asking and answering the ‘So what?’ question.

| 10 Tips to Achieve Excellence in Integrated Sustainability Reporting continued

This is not necessarily a concern that is limited to quantitative data and/or assertions. In many cases, the report is written almost exclusively for a well-informed shareholder (or worse, the Board), which can leave the reader guessing about what the strategy and/or business objectives of the company are… thus failing to offer any contextualisation for performance assertions.

NOTE

34

In some cases, companies have taken the notion of GRI-based reporting far too literally, and have merely produced a report that offers a response to as many of the GRI’s G3 indicators, without an attempt to either contextualise the information, or to make the report ‘readable’. These reports do little to provide an understanding of the company’s sustainability performance and/or outlook, and almost always suggest that the company is not serious about sustainability matters.

Although some might (and many do) argue that the GRI G3 guidelines are not entirely applicable and/or appropriate, the GRI is nonetheless THE benchmark standard for reporting. Thus, a report should contain clear and detailed Disclosures on Management Approach, and responses to all G3 indicators, even if only to indicate that they are ‘not material’ to the company. Where deemed ‘not material’ it’s critical to explain why not.

For those companies that have not yet produced a GRI-based report, I wonder out loud: “Why not?”

The GRI Guidelines have – as reported by the interviewees in the ‘Why Bother?’ section of this report – become the benchmark standard for sustainability reporting, and offer opportunities for meaningful comparability. They are recommended – albeit not necessarily applied – by King, and while they may not yet be nearing perfection, do offer a useful framework for effective reporting.

7 An ‘A’ is not necessarily better than a ‘C’! *UPDATEDThe second most commonly criticised problem that the GRI Guidelines created is the race to an ‘A’, under the assumption that an ‘A’ is fundamentally better than a ‘C’.

Good news…

The GRI appears to be getting rid of the A, B or C system of classifying reports. Although they’re not yet finalised, the G4 version

In order to be “GRI compliant”, a report MUST be supported by a GRI Content Index (as per Indicator 3.12). The GRI differentiates between reports that “apply the Guidelines” and those that are “GRI compliant”. Thus, the indicator table MUST be supplied, either within the report, or as a downloadable appendix on the company’s website (or available upon request by email).

NOTE

I am well aware of the fact that this research report, now in its 4th edition, has led to the misguided assumption that a high GRI compliance score is indicative of a “good report”. This is not true! As I’ve tried to state in each year’s research report, there is no guaranteed positive correlation between a high GRI compliance score and effective reporting. Rather, it is a complete red herring!

An effective report is measured not by the number of indicator boxes ticked, but rather by how well the GRI Guidelines are applied, in accordance with the principles of materiality and neutrality.

Our research – this year more than in the past – has noted that many companies have shot up the rankings in our GRI Compliance Score table merely as a result of producing a comprehensive GRI Content Index Table, inclusive of a number of meaningless attempts at offer ‘a response’, rather than ‘a meaningful response’. In some cases this is as blatant as a supplemental sustainability report that is little more than the blanking out of the GRI Gap Analysis template we gave them last year, now populated with poorly crafted responses to numerous indicators. Brilliant!

NOTE

of the Guidelines appear to be set to tackle the oft-misguided assumption that companies should all seek to “get an A”.

As ex-students, we’ve all been habituated into believing that in the presence of a ‘C’, ‘B’ and an ‘A’, the best of the three must be the ‘A’. Thus, companies far too frequently race towards an ‘A’ with little regard for ensuring that a meaningful discourse can be provided on each of the performance indicators. In the context of

sustainability reporting, an ‘A’ only means that the report has answered more of the GRI’s indicators than C-level or B-level reports.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded everyone that under the watchful eye of our current government, a Malema-inspired interpretation of basic math has somehow resulted in “a pass” occurring at the paltry sum of 30%, thus suggesting that anyone who can get to 50% is somewhat of a genius! In that context, it may be useful to point out that in the context of the GRI Guidelines, a company can be “GRI-complaint” if they have a GRI Compliance Score of only 25.3%. Thus, there should be no reason for any company not to be GRI-compliant (not even Brait).

NOTE

35

8 Neutrality works! *UPDATEDThe principle of neutrality was first floated by the GRI in its pre-G3 reporting principles, and was a cornerstone element of successful sustainability reporting in the early years. In essence, ‘neutrality’ is all about ‘balance’. It’s about ensuring that a report is not produced in a manner that attempts to ‘green wash’ environmental performance, or avoids occupational health and safety matters that paint the company as unsafe. It is about telling the whole story: ‘warts and all’.

Most companies still tend to follow a PR approach to reporting; failing to recognise the importance of explaining what might have gone wrong during the reporting period, and what is being done to rectify it. However, companies with more mature reporting processes now understand that while it is important to explain what you do right, this should not be the full extent of an effective report. Rather, it is far more important to inform stakeholders of the on-going challenges the company faces, as well as the company’s ability to address those challenges.

Neutrality requires companies to be truly ‘open’ and ‘transparent’, and to offer stakeholders an opportunity to effectively gauge their performance: not just to applaud the company for what it’s doing well, or right. However, this often presents a risk in and of itself, particularly at senior levels within companies. While report authors are often quick to adhere to the principle, senior executives tend to be quick to wield the red pen, ultimately erasing most discussions that offer balance. Thus, the challenge is for authors to write the ‘good news’ in a manner that does not appear overly self-congratulatory, while offering the ‘bad news’ in a manner that protects the company’s reputation and/or brand image.

Companies must not be afraid to say “We don’t know!” and should never make statements to the effect that ‘We are perfect!”

Companies are fallible. They make mistakes, and they are unlikely to be able to police all people at all times without some lapses occurring. The question is not “why aren’t you perfect?”, but rather “what are you doing to try to be perfect?” No right-minded stakeholder would expect a company to operate in the absence of error. Thus, companies must be willing to make over-arching policy statements, but then conclude that either performance data is not yet available, or that policies do not always root out human error. The alternative is to create an expectation of perfection, only to fall flat on one’s face when a stakeholder identifies a problem.

I truly believe that transparency and accountability are not to be hauled out only when it suits the picture a company attempts to paint. They are principles that ought to be applied consistently and without exception. They do not negate the probability of imperfection and error, but rather support the quest for goodwill among stakeholders.

| 10 Tips to Achieve Excellence in Integrated Sustainability Reporting continued

9 Seek meaningful assurance! *UPDATEDAs this year’s evidence shows, assurance is quickly becoming a ‘must have’ rather than a ‘nice to have’. It’s a recommendation within King III, and has been adopted not only by 52 of the 128 GRI-based reporting entities reviewed in our research, but has become the playing field for a rapidly expanding number of assurance providers. In the past year, the market has been penetrated by a few of the “Tier 2” auditing firms (BDO, Grant Thornton and PKF), as well as by a number of smaller, more niche-based entities (e.g., IRAS). Even Theo Botha, South Africa’s all-but-sole shareholder activist, has started up an assurance practice (CA-G Assurance), as has Empowerdex, SA’s leading BEE verification company (Assuredex). However, with 11 assurance providers now offering services to reporters – with the likes of some of the “Big 4” accountancies losing ground to new market entrants – the question of standards and quality assurance is becoming far more poignant.

The challenge is for companies to seek not only assurance – or an ‘audit-like’ opinion – over their sustainability report, but value-adding assurance. Companies should gain an understanding of what an assurance provider ought to be doing as part of the assurance process, and should be questioning whether or not the assurance adds value to the reporting process, or adds a level of comfort – for stakeholders reading the report – about whether or not the content of the report is fair, factual, reasonably complete, neutral, and comparable.

At present, there are only a handful of reasonably experienced assurance providers in South Africa, of which the vast majority will not necessarily have adequate industry and/or assurance-related experience to conduct Type II assurance engagements, as per AccountAbility’s AA1000AS recommendations. Thus, any company seeking assurance will need to understand the differences between the primary assurance standards – ISAE 3000 and AA1000AS – and what assurance options should be available to them.

I sincerely hope that the rise of new assurance providers encourages companies to take the time to understand that they do not need to hire expensive consultants to offer assurance, but rather could seek an independent opinion from as diverse a set of stakeholders as academics, activist groups (e.g., the Northwest Eco Forum, or the World Wildlife Fund), or to put assurance engagements out to public tender to gain a better understanding of what value assurance might actually offer. Of course, this is only possible if both parties know what they are seeking from an assurance engagement, and if both parties are sufficiently schooled in assurance methodologies.

For assurance to be truly meaningful, companies ought to avoid a process that simply attempts to tick a series of ‘Did you do this?’ boxes. Rather, the assurance should test for compliance to principles such as AccountAbility’s Inclusivity, Materiality and Responsiveness, to assess reporting systems and outcomes, and ultimately test for data accuracy, consistency, completeness and

reliability. Ask any company that has sought a Type II assurance opinion over their report, and I’m confident they would assert that the process added value to much more than merely the report, but to the overall success of the business.

10 If you’re gonna link it, do it right! *NEWPerhaps this is the first time my research report has fallen into your hands (or the first time you’ve actually opted to read it), so I’ll once again repeat my dissatisfaction with inane statements such as “We opted to be environmentally responsible”. What a load of bio digestible crap! Not printing a report – at least not a few hundred copies that can be highly targeted in their distribution – is little more than a cheap excuse for getting someone else to pay the cost of printing,

Granted, the iPad, Kindle and other e-readers are taking over some of the publication market, but e-readers are not great for report review (at least not yet), and have not yet pushed the printed word off the shelves. Not unlike many others in my generation, I prefer to read reports that I can hold in my hands. I want to scribble notes on the pages, and to dog-ear pages that offer important bits of info. Thus, I continue to encourage all companies that can’t afford to print a hard copy report to accept that if your business is going to collapse because of a few printed reports, you ought to start seeking new employment without delay!

Nonetheless, I’m not a complete Australopithecine, and I can walk upright without scraping my knuckles…at least to the point of being able to navigate my way around a website or two. However, I might be more willing to read online reports if companies were getting it right.

During a review of GRI-based reports for UK companies, I was stunned by how easy some companies have made it for readers to navigate through their online reports. GRI Content Index tables are hyper-linked to precisely the spot the reader wants to go (for any given indicator). Assurance statements are hyperlinked not only from the body of the main report to the statement, but also from an assertion within the statement back to the relevant section within the report (e.g., if diesel consumption was assured, the mention of diesel in the assurance statement was hyper-linked back to the diesel stats page in the online report).

At present, and with some notable exceptions (yet again, Sasol) the online versions of South African reports are little more than the .pdf version of a printable report being uploaded, page-by-page, onto the company’s website (rather than a meaningful and user-friendly HTML version). Altron has cleverly adapted their report for iPad use (downloadable as an app), and have created a comprehensive multi-media report linking videos to relevant sections.

Inasmuch as I’d still appreciate getting a hard copy of a report, I might be encouraged to spare a tree or two if companies could use the services of design houses who know how to create reports that can be printed, or viewed in a searchable online format. However, this would require companies ensuring that links work!

36

Some of the reports that score high in our monitoring scale are ultimately rubbish, in that they do little to provide a meaningful discussion of their ability to monitor and/or manage their most material risks, opportunities and/or impacts. Similarly, some companies that are yet to apply the GRI Guidelines, or that opt not to apply the guidelines, produce reports that provide excellent coverage of their “Most Material Issues”, and generally offer an excellent overview of their sustainability performance and outlook.

Granted, Sasol’s 2011 report, complete with its online supporting documentation, is by far one of the most useful examples of reporting excellence, but their near 100% compliance score is not ‘proof’ that the GRI Guidelines lead to excellence in reporting. As we noted last year, Sasol’s adoption of the Guidelines – as with other leading companies – should be viewed as evidence that the Guidelines ought to be considered relevant and useful to reporting entities of all shapes and sizes, and therefore should not be overlooked by anyone seeking to produce a meaningful sustainability (or integrated annual) report.

That having been said, our team of dedicated researchers are in a unique position to offer a form of recognition that is uncommon within any of the awards process we’re aware of. The team reviewed through more than 400 integrated annual, annual and/or sustainability reports – often embarking on seemingly endless quests to find “referenced” online supporting information – to assess the levels of GRI compliance of each and every reporting entity in South Africa. In doing so, the team has identified the reports they believe to be THE most useful examples of successful reporting procedures, inasmuch as they’ve been able to identify pitfalls that all reporters should ultimately seek to avoid. As such, the team has selected the reports that they believe represent ‘excellence’, and have offered their own comments regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their “personal favourites”.

The following is our research team’s explanation of why they chose each of their top reports.

Author’s Note:

As always, I’ve recused myself from the “our personal favourites” process, opting not to pick my own favourites, due to my level of engagement with a number of reporters. Of course, readers are encouraged to go to our website (www.iras.co.za) to download copies of the latest versions of the reports I have written or assured.

Combing through – quite literally – hundreds of annual, integrated annual, sustainability and/or sustainable development reports is a daunting task, made all the more mundane by the countless reports representing the ‘have nots’ in our reporting society. Despite the 13 year history of GRI-based reporting (12 years in South Africa), the vast majority of companies (65%) still haven’t awoken to the possibilities entrenched in the adoption of a set of reporting guidelines geared to improving overall sustainability performance (i.e., not just the reporting side of things). Thus, it’s always a pleasure to identify the handful of reports that stand out amongst the crowd, ultimately setting benchmarks for others to follow. Inasmuch as the following pages are NOT “an award”, it is a pleasure to read company reports that identify our research as a form of “recognition”. However, one must be careful to note that inclusion in our ranking is not – by any means – intended as said “recognition”. In fact, we have been clear in our repeated assertion that our ranking system is a complete red herring, in that a report can be “excellent” regardless of whether or not its authors have ticked the vast majority of the GRI’s boxes.

Should anyone wish to cite this research report as another form of ‘Reporting Award’ – vis-à-vis the awards issued by Ernst & Young and/or the ACCA – then it must be noted that only the following eight reports can be perceived as indicators of ‘excellence in reporting’.

Over the past three years we’ve been clear that a GRI compliance score approaching 100% should NEVER be viewed as a demonstration of excellence in reporting, but rather a demonstration of the perceived relevance of the GRI Guidelines by a specific reporting entity. In fact, one must be cautious in noting that both Impahla Clothing and Little Eden rank within the top 20, based on GRI compliance.

Our Personal Favourites

Purple Frog Communications specialise

in design and production for print,

web design and all areas of creative

consultancy and development.

We provide a full service, taking your

project from initial concept right through

to completion.

Our core offering includes:

integrated annual reports, sustainability reports, financial advertising, web design, corporate identity and

branding, corporate brochures,

magazine adverts, newsletters, signage,

billboards, banners, exhibition stands

and corporate gifts.

conceptualise actualise realise

Email: info@purplefrog.co.zaTelephone: (011) 462 7242

www.purplefrog.co.za

37

Julia’s #1

ü Sustainability issues are addressed throughout the report and both the Chairman and the Chief Executive discuss material sustainability issues.

ü The graphs and data summaries on the outside edges of pages ensure that data facts stand out and make the report more immediately interesting.

ü The summary of data at the end of the report is a very useful reference for when a reader is quickly looking for figures.

ü The lifecycle of a mine is described upfront, making readers aware of the processes and impacts involved with mining and how the group approaches these.

ü That the report is printed on environmentally conscious paper shows that sustainability is important to the group at many levels.

ü The maps present locations clearly. All too often maps are either absent, or are not clearly presented.

ü The photographs give a good visual description of what operations involve and add a personal touch. The captions usefully highlight their relevance to the group.

ü The report is clearly laid out with good spacing and headings and is therefore attractive and accessible to readers.

ü The report is clearly written with good simple English, so it is easily understandable.

ü The definitions of indicators at the end of the report describe explicitly how calculations were done.

ü The numerous footnotes to graphs and tables clarify points so the report can be completely understood.

O The stakeholder section could be more thorough and include the topics raised by each stakeholder and how the group has responded to each of these.

O Operations are large and it is sometimes difficult to collate data from such dispersed subsidiaries. Although efforts have been started to collect and bring data together, care should be taken that all data is presented for all operations in all countries.

O The habitats surrounding operations and how they are impacted should be more fully described.

O Data on employees and employee turnover should be clearly divided by type, diversity, gender and region.

O There were some cases where attaching values to graphs would add to their usefulness. For example the water, energy and emissions graphs could either have the 2011 values included, or a reference to where the actual values are stated at the back of the report.

Anglo American PlcAnglo American Plc has a vast number of operations reaching to all corners of the globe. This could make reporting very difficult, yet their Sustainable Development Report is so eloquent that a huge volume of information has been made completely digestible. Right at the start the reader gets a full summary of the operations (mine locations, use of the minerals mined, number of people involved and profit generated), a fantastic base to anchor the rest of the report. Throughout the report the sections are clear and organised and data is usefully summarised at the end. Despite the size of operations, the report manages to remain concise; an important trait in a world where people have less time to do more work.

Julia’s #2

ü The operations of the group including locations and subsidiaries involved are all described succinctly right at the start.

ü The report is well designed with good clear headings, useful summaries in bullet points at the start of sections, all making for an easily digestible report.

ü Major headings are repeated at the top of pages so the reader knows where in the report they are.

ü The graphs are simple; axes and legends are labelled and headings explain what the graph is about.

ü The GRI indicators that are discussed in a section are listed at the end of that section, making for easy referencing.

ü It is a pleasure to know the activities and locations of the group and its subsidiaries within the first two pages. This sets the scene for the rest of the report. It is surprising how often companies do not describe their business upfront.

ü The photographs give the reader a good sense of what the operations involve and add a personal touch. Importantly, they have captions, which adds significantly to their relevance and interest.

ü Contact details for someone specifically involved with the report, including an email address and phone number, are given on the very first page.

O Referencing in the GRI table is not always correct.

O The scope and boundary of the report (“Our Approach to Sustainability Reporting”) could be closer to the start of the report, perhaps before the CEO’s statement, rather than on page 11.

O The most senior decision maker in the organisation is the Chairman. GRI indicator 1.1 commonly references a review done by someone other than the Chairman, which is incorrect according to the guidelines.

O Even though the Sustainable Development Report (SDR) should be read in conjunction with the Annual Report and Accounts, a summarised Chairman’s letter could be included in the SDR.

O A map would add significantly to the first two pages where the operations are outlined.

O URLs should be written out underneath links (this was a web-based report) for readers who have printed versions.

Lonmin PlcLonmin are clear leaders in reporting, having produced sustainability reports for the last 13 years. This is evidenced by their very thorough and well laid out Sustainable Development Report for 2011. The report is clear, simple and easy to read as well as being so thorough that very little is left unanswered. Having said this, the report does not solely (and soullessly) follow the GRI guidelines. There are more initiatives that the group engages with than just those required by the GRI. This shows the group is both fully involved with, and openly reporting on, matters that are material to themselves rather than just ticking the required boxes.

| Our Personal Favourites continued

38

Lauren’s #2

ü Right from the start of the report the reader knows exactly who the company is and what they can expect the report to contain.

ü For visually stimulated readers the provision of a map that clearly depicts the geographic spread of operations and customers not only shows the extent of the operations, but also makes it more interesting to read.

ü The inclusion of a one-page company history – “Grindrod history” – provides a context to where the company has come from and how it has grown, and adds an element of interest to the standard report format. Highlights are blocked according to different aspects of the business (environmental, economic, non-financial, financial etc.) and are provided upfront giving the reader an overview of the successes of the year in an integrated manner.

ü Sustainability reviews and highlights are included for each of the divisions (Divisional Reviews), reflecting that sustainability is integrated into reporting and not just discussed as a side line issue. This reinforces Grindrod’s assertion that sustainability is a core element of their business.

ü The language used in the report makes it more ‘readable’, thereby making the report easily understandable to anyone unfamiliar with the specific activities of the company.

ü Detailed quantitative environmental data is provided and clearly presented in a well-mapped table making it easy to compare assessments of environmental indicators.

ü The group highlights are colorfully presented at the start of the report with a good balance of financial and non-financial achievements, again reflecting the integrated nature of the report.

ü A fold-out index on the inside front cover is a good design element as it is useful as a page marker and makes the report easily navigable.

O As a practical tip, if using abbreviations in the GRI table please include a key of what these mean. For example, is NR = Not Reported, or NR = Not Required?

O References to documents found online should have a direct URL as opposed to simply www.grindrod.co.za.

O Environmental performance data would be complemented with graphs to show trends.

O Although the sustainability section has a scope, there would be merit in including a scope / boundary section at the start of the whole Integrated Annual Report.

O Disclosures on management approach need to be more explicit for solid level B compliance. Management approaches should leave the reader feeling that the company has defined policies, measurement processes and has shown that controls or audits are in place.

Lauren’s #1

ü The Illovo report is a comprehensive report that is easily read and understandable by stakeholders; from both a design and content perspective it is excellent.

ü A clear “Scope of report” section on the inside front cover immediately lets readers know what to expect in the report and why certain aspects have or have not been included.

ü Key features such as cane production, sugar production and revenue are provided on page one immediately giving the reader an overview of the successes and drawbacks of the reporting period. These are presented with up and down arrows and percentages, which makes performance obvious.

ü A double page spread on strategic and operational accountability clearly summarises the business profile of each country of operation and outlines aspects such as their objectives and performance providing the reader with a clear overview of operations.

ü Illovo’s diagrammatic cane sugar sustainability model makes the operations understandable to all readers of the report, and thus makes the report more meaningful.

ü The group risk management committee is accountable for sustainability and there is a clear description of how this is managed at a board level, thus reinforcing their assertion that sustainability and integrated reporting is a core element of their business.

ü The key risk matrix provides a transparent account of the risks to the business and links to material issues. Clearly presented and informative.

ü Reporting on climate change risks and opportunities is presented in a way that is both relevant and informative.

ü The discussion surrounding the value added statement is clear and explains the content of the statement in a useful manner, however CSI should be included.

ü A fold-out index on the inside front cover is a good design element as it is useful as a page marker and makes the report immediately easily navigable.

O The report has two scopes, which is unnecessary and creates repetition throughout the report. It conveys the impression that sustainability is not fully integrated. Remember that “integrated” does not mean combined.

O As the report is built upon over the years, one could hope to see an improvement in comparability of data. A suggestion for companies starting reporting with little year on year comparable data is to include external comparability by linking your stats to those of other companies within your industry locally and/or internationally (i.e., who’s the best in the world in the agricultural sector, per indicator, and where does Illovo sit relative to their benchmark?).

O Reporting on stakeholder engagement can be improved by including more detail on the frequency of interactions and the issues raised by stakeholders.

O Sweeping generalisations are included throughout the report without substantiating the assertions made.

Illovo SugarHaving to plough through hundreds of reports annually it is always refreshing to come across a report that is easy to read, tells a story and leaves me feeling more educated about an aspect of business or production in South Africa. The Illovo report was one such report. I now have a thorough understanding of the South African sugar industry, the macroeconomic forces that influence it, the agricultural practices involved, the vulnerability to climate change and the opportunities for expansion into renewable fuels. The report is both visually stimulating and factually informative. The layout makes it easily navigable and appealing to all potential readers.

GrindrodAs a transportation company with various divisions operating across the globe, Grindrod has compiled a clear and cohesive report, which successfully integrates all aspects of economic, social and environmental performance and aligns these to their strategy. From the very start of the report the reader is informed of who the company is, what they do and what they stand for thus making it accessible to any stakeholder or interested party. I believe that a well-structured report implies that the organisation is also well run and thus is a powerful tool for communicating the brand and ethos of an organisation to external stakeholders. Grindrod is one of my favorite reports as it is excellently compiled, clearly separates different divisions (whilst including consistent data for each) and tells the story of who the company is.

39

| Our Personal Favourites continued

Matt’s #1

ü The online case studies serve as reminders and proof of what Sasol is actually doing to address all of the sustainability measures that they mention in the report.

ü The GRI index is very useful ast whenever information is not immediately available via the hard copies of the two reports, a direct URL to the supplemental online information is provided.

ü The report provides a comprehensive overview of the company’s operations and how sustainability is integrated in every aspect from top to bottom in their “integrated business model.”

ü Sasol does a very good job of explaining why certain GRI indicators are not material to their business.

ü Pictures in the report provide a contextual view into the working environment of the company as well as being relevant to the information being discussed in each section.

ü Graphs and charts are used in both reports to help make quantitative information more meaningful and understandable.

ü The content in this report is easy to understand for someone that might be less familiar with the operations of the company.

ü This report does an incredible job in its ability to substantiate qualitative assertions with quantitative data.

O The PDF version of the report should provide hyper-links to the online content.

O While money spent on social investment and donations is addressed, the value added statement should have this information as well.

O The stakeholder engagement section could include some specific topics rather than just referencing other locations of the report.

O The chairman’s statement in both the integrated report and the sustainable development report are the same, a different statement with more emphasis on sustainability would be appropriate in the sustainable development report.

SasolOver the course of this project I reviewed over 100 reports and Sasol’s certainly stood out as my top report. The overall impression I got from reading this report was the overwhelming investment that Sasol has placed on being a leader in the realm of sustainability.

What I found most impressive was the ease in which I was able to understand the content. For someone like myself, lacking a background in this field, the report is written in such a way that makes it understandable and meaningful to someone less familiar with the nature of their operations.

The report is second to none in its ability to cover most (99.6%) of GRI guidelines while covering the material in a way that still tells their story without simply “box-ticking” the various indicators.

Overall this report shows that Sasol doesn’t simply report on sustainability, but that it is indeed embedded in their everyday operations.

Matt’s #2

ü Sappi does a great job at displaying relevant quantitative data in a way that makes it meaningful and comparable to data from different reporting periods.

ü The online sustainability report provides excellent disclosure on management’s various approaches to reporting on all GRI indicators.

ü The report is very well laid out with each main sustainability category having its own section.

ü The chairman’s report is very well written and goes into significant detail towards the company’s views on sustainability.

ü The extent of the sustainability report shows that significant time and energy is invested into reporting on all types of relevant information for stakeholders.

ü The report uses charts in both the integrated and sustainability report that compliment the information and makes the data more meaningful.

ü When it’s relevant, the sustainability report clarifies how certain performance indicators differ on a regional level.

ü Sappi’s stakeholder engagement section “Our impact on the world around us” is very well put together and contains a significant amount of quantitative data that relates to each group of stakeholders.

O Without a hard copy of the sustainability report, it is a very tedious process cross referencing between the GRI index and the sustainability report online which is broken into a number of PDF files. These should be consolidated into one single file.

O Some graphs in the sustainability report are very tough to read because of the large amount of information in a small space.

O There is scope for a chairman’s/CEO’s letter in the sustainability report.

O Some explanations (such as the health and safety topics covered in labour agreements) could be beefed up as to why they are not reported on.

SappiSappi’s report probably did the best job of any in reporting on quantitative data that is related specifically to the requirements of the GRI. Their report was broken down into main components and addressed every indicator that was material to them.

One thing I really liked about Sappi’s report was how they clearly explained the significance of certain sustainability issues and how that significance changed across the globe. Sappi has an extensive global footprint and did a great job of explaining where certain sustainability issues may be more relevant in different regions.

A true sign of a well-written report is the degree to which information is understandable and meaningful. Sappi does an excellent job at presenting complex sustainability initiatives in a way that someone less familiar with the nature of their operations can understand.

40

Tahereh’s #1

ü Integration of sustainability throughout the organisation from high-level decision making to day-to-day activities is well demonstrated in the report. It makes the reader believe that sustainability is the way that the organisation does its business.

ü The report explains the company’s sustainability journey very well. It provides good information about what has been achieved, what its current position is, and what its plan for the future is.

ü Engagement with stakeholders and how the company is trying to build a win-win interaction with its stakeholders based on common understanding of current and future situations is well described.

ü Very good use of tables in various sections of the report. The tables are easy to understand without overloading the reader with useless information.

ü The depiction of the CSI strategy is well-structured and suggests that it is based on both international goals and national needs.

ü Effective case studies are included in various sections. These help the reader learn more about the company’s challenges and achievements.

ü In general the report is very well written and laid out. It is easy to find what you are looking for, as the report provides information in a gentle and rational flow.

ü The multi-dimensional nature of environmental aspects with which the company is dealing, is explained well in specific sections.

O Although stakeholder engagement is discussed well in the report, the basis of stakeholder identification is not mentioned. This point should not be undermined since it reflects the reason behind such engagement and the values and rationale on which interactions are based.

O The GRI index includes good cross referencing to different reports. It might be improved by providing page numbers which helps the reader to find desired information more easily.

O Woolworths’ approach towards Human Rights issues needs to be explained more explicitly and supported by factual data and information. Related indicators are only addressed in the GRI index in the report.

WoolworthsThis report demonstrates how a company may move forward on a sustainability journey. It’s the best example of “walking the talk”, and how a company’s efforts in its “Good Business Journey” can evolve into a learning process in which innovation, commitment and continuous improvement are essential pillars. Also, the report effectively describes how high-level commitment to sustainability can translate into company strategies and day-to-day activities. Reading the report had such an impact on me that after reading it, I have started to look for Woolworth’s initiatives in my daily life.

Tahereh’s #2

ü Statements from the highest governance bodies of the organisation reflect leadership support for integration of sustainability throughout the business.

ü The importance of sustainability to the company is well explained in the report. It helps the reader understand their business case for sustainability.

ü The Chief Financial Officer’s report discusses material sustainability issues. It reflects the fact that sustainability discussions are not restricted to specific departments in the organisation and allocation of time, budget and human capital to move forward on this journey is supported as essential to the business.

ü The report provides the reader with a comprehensive market review around all material issues, helping the reader gain an understanding of the external context in which the organisation is operating.

ü Very good use of tables in the stakeholder and risk review sections. The tables are both meaningful and easy to understand.

ü It’s obvious that Astrapak considered the GRI guidelines in preparing the report (although it’s not a GRI report), which appears to have led to a well-structured report. Topics progress from one to the next in a logical and integrated manner.

O The strategic approach of the company towards sustainability might be supported by reporting explicitly about the sustainability implementation plan and the relevant KPIs Astrapak has developed.

O Since employees and their well-being and development are clearly stated in various sections of the report as one pillar of the organisation’s sustainability agenda, the reader expects to find more facts and figures (i.e., data trends) supporting specific assertions in this regard.

O The role of the company’s products in achieving its sustainability agenda is explained in the “Our role in sustainability” section, but the reader may expect to find more comprehensive and supporting discussions and facts in subsequent sections about plans, procedures and projects in place for the company to have more sustainable products: including environmental and product responsibility related topics.

O Contact details for questions regarding the report or its contents need to be explicitly stated. A person to contact and either a phone number or e-mail address should be included.

AstrapakThis report is one of the best examples of acquiring an integrated and strategic approach towards sustainability at the beginning stages of a sustainability journey. The report was written in such a way that it clearly explains the business case for sustainability in the organisation. It makes the reader believe that Astrapak is committed to its slogan of “Seeing Beyond”. One of the most important factors that kept this report at the top of my favourites is the inclusion of a meaningful sustainability discussion in the Chief Financial Officer’s report. It suggests that there is an agreement about the meaning of sustainability from different points of view within the company, and that investing in the sustainability of the environment and society is considered as an essential element for the sustainability of the business.

41

Engage strategically!AA1000SES

Report effectively!AA1000APS

Assure with meaning!AA1000AS

info@accountability.org • www.accountability.org

Since 1995, AccountAbility has been a global provider of innovative solutions to critical challenges in corporate responsibility and sustainable development.

With offices in London, Washington, New York, São Paulo, Zurich, Dubai and Riyadh, AccountAbility is the benchmark standard for stakeholder engagement and reporting.

To inquire about our standards, or our Certified Sustainability Assurance Practitioner

qualification, email us at:

Abertina Khumalo and her family of 23 orphaned grandchildren and great grandchildren, were among the recipients of IRAS’s 2010 ‘Making Reporting Matter’ clothing drive.

Attendees of our report launch participated in our ‘bring a shirt take a shirt’ campaign, ultimately helping us take a trailer filled with clothes to Hlabisa in northern KZN.

Hlabisa is home to one of Cotlands’ most important community-based HIV-AIDS projects, due to an HIV-infection rate that is well above 60%.

42

| Why Report According to GRI?

• Theytendnottobequalifiedtodotheworkrequiredtoassesssocial,environmentaland/orgovernanceperformance;and,

• Theyareinherentlytrainedtolookbackwards…notforward,whichiswhat’sneededinsustainabilityreporting.

Todate,Icanonlyrecallonefundmanagerwhohasevercalledandaskedforclarificationaboutsomethingcontainedwithinthereport.Thus,thebigquestionwillbewhetherornottheinvestorstakeESGissuesand/orthePrinciplesforResponsibleInvesting(PRI)moreseriously.However,theCodeforResponsibleInvestinginSouthAfricacameintoeffectlatelastyear,requiringinvestorstoreportbackonhowtheyareapplyingESGconsiderationswhenmakinginvestmentdecisions.

Perhaps the GRI’s day in the sun is yet to come.Manyofthecurrentreportingawardshavebecomemeaningless,simplybecausewhatisdeemed‘excellence’inoneprocesscanbedeemedonly‘OK’inanother.Ratherwhatisrequiredisidentifyingrealleadershipincorporateaccountabilityandtransparency.

Nerine Botes-Schoeman (African Rainbow Minerals)

AfricanRainbowMinerals(ARM)firststartedapplyingtheGRIGuidelinesasfromtheir2010SustainableDevelopmentReport(SDR),primarilybecauseitwasthestandardofthedayforreportingcompliance.NotonlywastheGRIrecommendedbytheKingCodeofCorporateGovernance,butitwasalsothedefactostandardrecognisedbytheICMM.Atthetime,wewereconsideringjoiningtheInternationalCouncilonMetalsandMining(ICMM)–whichwehavesincedone–whichrequiresthatweproduceareportthatmeetstheGRI’sApplicationLevelA+requirements.

Infairness,wewerecomingatthiscold,andintheabsenceofaframework,itwasusefultoapplytheGRIasaframeworkforreporting,andwecontinuetoapplytheguidelinesbecausetheygiveusstructureforyear-on-yearcomparisons.

It’sthatwholethingaboutwhatyoudon’tmeasure,youcannotmanage.Byapplyingtheguidelines,wewereabletoidentifygapsinourownsystemswhichallowedustodetermineifthegapswerereasonable,oriftherewerespecificareaswhereweneededtoimplementchange.

Onceyouhaveadocument,it’smucheasierforyoutodeterminethe‘wheretonext’.Bypreparingandpublishingthereports,

Withrespecttoassurance,I’vegotafundamentalproblemwithexternalauditorsgettinginvolved,forthefollowingreasons:

• Theirindemnityinsurancepoliciesruleoutaneffectiveopinion,ultimatelyresultinginmeaninglessassurancestatementsthatseemtodolittlemorethanprotecttheauditorsfromanyformofrecourse;

“What the Da Vinci Code is to Christianity, so is the GRI to sustainability.”Forbetterorworse,theGRIhascreatedaframework,orprotocol,thatcanbedecryptedforthemasses,sothatpeoplecanunderstandwhatisorisnotmaterial,andthuswhatmustbemeasuredandreportedbyanorganisationofanyshapeorsize.However,onemustconsiderthatit’stheresponsibilityoftheauthortoeducatethereadership.Readersofthereportmustbeinformedabouthowitismeanttoberead,howtheGRIisbeingapplied,andwheretofindsupplementalinformationnotcontainedwithinthereport.

Achallengeforreportingisreallytofindwaystoquantifyandassessacompany’sreputationrelativetoanarrayofkeystakeholders,suchasemployees,suppliersandcustomers.AdheringtotheGRIGuidelinesdoesn’tcreateamechanismforreporting–ortesting–thedegreetowhichthecompanyisviewedasmeetingstakeholderexpectationsand/oractinginaresponsiblemanner.However,theremustbesomewaytoavoidreportsbeingwrittenintheabsenceofsomesenseofneutrality,or‘balance’betweenthegood,badand/oruglyduringthereportingperiod.

Asanoutsider–albeitareasonablywell-informedauthorofourownreport–readingthereportsofseveraloftheTop20Companiesmakesyouquestionhowacompanythatisdeemedtoover-remunerateitsdirectors,andtoperpetuallyfloutgovernanceandcompetitionlaw,canbescoringover80%intermsoftheGRIindicators.

Lessons Learned from Leading Reporters, on “Why GRI?”Forthreeyears,theannualpublicationofthe“KingIII&GRI+”seriesofannualreviewsofsustainabilityreportinginSouthAfricahavebeendominatedbyoneopinion–thatofMichaelH.Rea–althoughlastyear’sreportincludedanextremelyusefulopinionpiecewritteninpartnershipwithJonathonHanksandNicolaRobbinsfromInciteSustainability.Those‘casual’discussionswrittentoofferanopinionregardingwhatishappening,andwhatoughttohappen,butexcludedawidersetofopinions.Granted,myegoassertsthat‘theoneopinion’shouldsuffice,butreasonmaydictateaneedformoreinputfromothers.

ThefollowingpagessummariseasetofinterviewswithpersonsresponsibleforthesustainabilityreportsofsomeofSouthAfrica’sleadingreporters,withthesoleintentionofattemptingtohelp‘newreporters’seekguidancefromthegurusofreporting(i.e.,thosewhohavebeenproducingreportsfortheircompaniesyearafteryear).

Andrew Johnston (Altron)

Abouteightyearsago,thewheelwasturningtotheextentwheretherewasanidentifiedneedforintegratedreportinginacorporatecontext,butparticularlywithrespecttowhatisrelevant,or‘material’,withinAltron.Aswestartedtolookaroundathowotherswerereporting,therewasreallyonlyoneplacetogo:theGRI.Infact,it’snotasifwehadachoice,butratherwhereelsecouldonelooktofindacredibledatabasetocompareyourreportstoothers.However,itshouldbenotedthatit’sdifficulttomeasureyourselfagainstaconsistent/credibledatabase,duetothewayinwhichsustainabilityreportingneedstobeinterpreted,or‘de-coded’,foreachcompany.

Why Report According to GRI?

The views expressed within the following pages must be understood to be the opinions of the individuals commenting: not necessarily the companies they work for. In some cases, the individual has worked – and thus reported – for more than one company, thereby bringing to the discussion a set of experiences that exceed the confines of their current employer.

One must remember that this document (i.e., our annual review of GRI-based sustainability reporting in South Africa) is an assessment of a report’s compliance with the guidelines. It is not ‘assurance’, but simply an evaluation of whether or not reasonable responses to the GRI indicators have been provided by the reporting entity. We do not attempt to offer some sort of normative evaluation of whether the company is doing the right things.

NOTE

CAUTION

44

we’vebeenabletomovebeyondreportingforcompliance,toreportingaspartoftheoverallmanagementofourSDperformance.It’sallaboutcontinuousimprovement.

Applicabilityisperhapsthebiggestchallenge.You’resittingwithhavingtoalignmaterialityattheframeworklevel.Ultimately,youfindyourselfrunningaround,chasingnumbers,tryingtogiveanswerstoindicatorsthathavebeendeemed‘material’byothers,butarenotnecessarilypertinenttoourorganisation.Ultimately,eachorganisationneedstoapplytheprincipalofmaterialityrelativetothemselves,anddeterminewhatinformationoughttobecollatedandreportedupon.Otherwise,thistendstobecomeyetanothertick-boxexercise.

Thisyear,we’veseenanincreaseinthenumberofqueries,frominstitutionalinvestors–primarilyfromoverseas–aboutinformationcontainedwithinourSDR,specificallyourpoliciesandprocedurestomanagespecificissues.ThereisclearlyanincreaseinrequestsforSDinformation,anditisunlikelythatthedemandforthisinformationwillwane.

Attheendoftheday,thevalueofassuranceisinthecheckingoftheintegrityofourownreporting,andadherencetoourownstandardsanddefinitions.Assurancealsohelpstoeducatepeoplewithintheorganisationabouthowdatacollection,collationandreportingsystemscouldbeimproved,butmoreimportantlyabouthowthereportingisrelevantinthebiggerpictureofARManditskeystakeholders.Bygoingthroughtheassuranceprocesson-site,themanagementteamataminebecomesmuchmoreawareofwhyARMreports,andwhytheirinformationmustbeaccurateandauditable.

PriortotheirbigincidentintheGulfofMexico,BPwasaGRIA+assuredcompany,yetthequestionthengetsraisedaboutwhethertheywerereportinginthetruespiritof‘materiality’.Ultimately,itwouldbeusefulfortheprocessofapplyingtheGuidelinestobecome‘simpler’–forlackofabetterterm–andtomakeitmucheasiertoapplytheprincipalofmaterialityinawaythataddsvaluenotonlytocompaniessuchasARM,buttothewidestpossiblearrayofstakeholders.

Whenonelooksatthevariousstandardsoutthere–GRI,GlobalCompact,ICMM,KingIII,MiningCharter,JSESRIIndex,etc.–thechallengeisincreatingareportthatcomplieswiththeGRI,butalsoprovidesonesetofinformationthatsatisfiesallofthestandardsinonego.Thiscanberathercumbersomewhenalsotryingtoproduceareportthatis‘readable’.

Perhaps,theJSEcouldworkwiththeGRItoprovidean‘SRI-specificGRISectorSupplement’thatwouldhelpsimplifythingsintooneframeworkforreportinginSouthAfrica.

Steve Bullock (Anglo American Platinum)

Internally,wedon’tover-emphasisetheGRIGuidelines.Rather,wefocusonmateriality.TheGRIonlycomesinattheendofouroverallreportingprocess,justasthereportstartstocometogether,andtheguidelinesaresimplyareferencepoint,notadrivingforce,forourreporting.Intruth,therearemany,manypeopleinvolvedinourannualreporting,inaprocessthatspansroughlysixmonthsofeveryyear,andwhilethecoreteampullingthereporttogetherusestheGRIasaframework,thevastmajorityofthecontributorstothereportdon’tevenconsidertheguidelines.Theysimplyprovidedataandinformationagainstasetofcriteriaprovidedtothem,albeitdefinedbytheGRIdefinitions.

Ultimately,theGRIGuidelinesaretheonlyrealoption,forthefollowingreasons:

• Theyhavemanagedtobuild‘criticalmass’intermsofthenumberofcompaniesthathaveappliedthemtotheirreports;

• TheGuidelinesprovideusefuldefinitionstoensurethateveryoneknowswhatisreasonablyexpected;

• TheGuidelinesprovidetheguidancepeopleneedtonotonlyproduceacomparablereport,buttoestablishareportingprocess,fromdeterminingthescopeandboundariesofthereport,toapplyingtheprincipleofmaterialitytodeterminingwhatshouldbereportedupon;and,

• TheGuidelinesgiveyouthestructurerequiredsothatyoucangointoanHRDirector–oranyoneelsewithinthebusiness–andexplainexactlywhattheyshouldbereportingupon,andhow.

WhenyoulookatwhatwedowithinAngloAmericanPlatinum,withrespecttothecheckingofnumbersandassertionswithinthereport,youseehowreportinghasbecomeanexcellentindicatoroftheextenttowhichourBoardandExecutivestakereportingseriously.Thereportisn’twrittenintheirabsence,ratherwiththeiractiveinvolvementthroughoutahighlystructuredprocess.

OurreportingprocessstartswithascopingmeetinginJuly,establishingtheframeworkofthenextreportbasedonguidancethatcomesfromAngloAmericanplc.Ourdatamanagementsystemsperpetuallycollectandcollatethedataweneed,andtheassuranceprocessbeginstowardstheendofourthirdquarter.However,therealwork–theunderpressurework–happensintheperiodbetweenouryearend(31December)andwhenourreportissignedoffamere28workingdayslater.

Itmayseemabsurdtotrytopublishannualandsustainabledevelopmentreportsonlyfourweeksaftertheyearend,butinourexperiencewe’venotedthatthepressureofsuchatight

ENVIRONMENTAL & SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS

Internationally certified by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (sustainability reporting training) and

licensed by AccountAbility (assurance)

Training courses • GRIcertifiedcourseonSustainabilityReporting • GRIPerformanceIndicators • GRIcertifiedadvancedcoursesonMateriality

andStakeholderEngagement • Managingtheassuranceprocessofyour

sustainability report • Introductiontoclimatechange

Sustainability/Integrated Reporting • Consultingonandwritingofsustainability/

integrated reports • Reviewandlevelcheckofsustainability/

integrated reports •Assuranceofsustainability/integratedreports

Consulting services • Environmentalmanagementaccounting • Materialflowcostaccounting • Environmentalcostassessmentandmodelling • Resourceefficiencyandcleanerproduction • Carbonfootprinting

Contact details www.envsustsol.co.za|envsustsol@mweb.co.zaor0823957582(Seakle)|0828827700(Maryna)

LEADERS IN SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING

ESS is a GRI Certified Training Partner in South Africa

45

Why did you/your company decide to adopt the GRI Guidelines for your reporting (compliance, only game in town, globally respected guidelines, etc.)?HB(AA): AllICMMcompanieshavecommittedtoGRIA+

reporting.Wewouldprobablyfollowthemanyway.They’renotperfect,buttheyrepresentthemostcredibleandwidelyusedoption.

KI(SB): Becauseitisauniversalframeworkthathascredibility.Weallneedtofocusonsystematic,credibledata.LeadingcompaniesmaygobeyondGRI,butthecoreandessencemustremainGRI,asotherwisetheapproachistoomuchlikeBSandtoolittlelikesystematicmanagementdata.EvenaswemoveintotheintegratedreportingphasethecoreofthesustainabilitypiecewillremainGRI(evenasitevolves),becausetheabsenceofauniversalframeworkisnotbetterreporting,butaresurgenceofPR.

NM(AGA): AngloGoldAshantihasadoptedsustainabilityreportingpracticessince2003.TheGuidelines:

• Ensurethatinformedsustainabilityconsiderationsarefactoredintoeverybusinessdecisionmadewithinthecompany;

• Secureandmaintainourlegalandsociallicencetooperate;

• Managetheorganisation’sreputationanddeveloptrustwithallstakeholders;

• Identifykeytrendsintheindustry,anticipatetheimpactsonAGA’sbusinessandproactivelymanageourresponsetothebenefitofouremployees,shareholders,socialpartnersandstakeholders,positioningthecompanyasapreferredoperator;

• Implementasustainablemodelformining,whichaddressespastactivitiesbothpositiveandnegative,aswellascurrentandfuturetrends;

allowforthebestpossibilityfortruecomparability:againstourselves(year-on-year),ourSouthAfricanpeersandcolleagues,aswellasourglobalcompetitors.

However,inordertomaketheGuidelinesreasonablyrelevanttoallofourbusinessunits,acrossallofthecountriesinwhichweoperate,we’vehadto‘Sasolise’them.Indoingso,we’veattemptedtowritetheminourown‘Sasollanguage’,andtoclarifythemintermsofwhatmustbeincluded,orexcluded,whenprovidedwithdataand/orexplanations.

WhenoneassessestheGRIComplianceScorereportedwithinthisreportbytheIRASteam,itmustbeunderstoodthatSasolisnotinthebusinessoftickingboxes.Yes,wehavescored99.6%intermsof“compliance”totheGuidelines,butthiswasnotaquickprocess,andnota‘stunt’pulledtoimpressresearchersandanalysts.Rather,itwasamulti-yearevolutionofourdatamanagementsystemsandcontrols,perpetuallyseekingtoensurethateachindicatorhasbeenadaptedtoourreportingneeds.

Anemergingtrendisthefactthatanalystsaretellingusthattheyareusingthedatathatweprovideinourreports,eventhoughit’snotalwaysascomparableisitcouldbe.ThedegreetowhichthecurrentversionoftheGRIGuidelinesallowsforinterpretationamongstreportersissomethingthatcreatesproblems.Forexample,whenwereportoursafetytrendsintermsof‘TotalRecordableFrequencyRate’,thereisnoguaranteethatothercompaniesareinterpreting‘recordable’and/or‘injury’inthesamewaywedo.Thus,neitherwenortheanalystsareyetinapositiontoplacemuchstockincomparisonsofsafetyratesacrossallcompanies:onlytheonesweknowtobetrulycomparable.ThisissomethingtheGRIanditsstakeholdersaretryingtofixwiththeforthcomingG4.

Withrespecttoassurance,itshouldbenotedthatthevalueofassurancedoesnotcomefromthestatementweincludeinourreport.Althoughastatementisimportanttoinclude,therealvaluecomesfromthemanagementreportwegetfromourassuranceprovider.Infairness,analystsarenotyetaskingaboutassurance.Rather,therehasonlybeenonequestion–fromananalystintheNetherlands–aboutourassuranceprocesses,butthat’snotwhyweundertakeassurance.Throughthe‘thirdeye’view,ourassurersidentifyprocessimprovementopportunitiesthatultimatelyenableustostrengthenourdatamanagementpolicies,proceduresandsystems,includingourinternalcontrols,whichultimatelyimprovesthequalityofthedatawepresenttoourstakeholder.

deadlineincreasesthecollectiveattentiontodetailwithinourreports.Itmeansthatwemustbewell-preparedtotellthestoriesthatneedtooccur,andthatourdatamanagementpoliciesandprocedurescontinuetosupportourreportingobjectives.

Ultimately,anyorganisationcanformulatewhatitbelievesismaterial,butaneffectivereportingprocessmustincludeengagementwithstakeholderstoensurethattheirassessmentisconsistentwiththecompany’s.Overthepastcoupleofyears,AngloAmericanPlatinumhasbeguntoengagemoreproactively–upfront–inthereportingprocess,todetermineifwhatwebelieveismaterialiswhatourkeystakeholderswouldexpecttoseewithinourreports.

Whenonetracksthehitswegetonourwebsite,there’sdefinitelybeenanincreaseonthenumberofpageimpressionsforspecificelements/datacontainedwithinoursustainabilityreports.TheScandinavianstates’pensionfundsarerequiringthatESGconsiderationsareappliedtoinvestmentdecisions,whichhasresultedinanuptakeinreviewingsustainabilityreports,butawiderarrayofstakeholdersarenowlookingatdata,andareobviouslymuchmoreawareofwhatwedo.However,wehavenotedthatwhileindustrybodiesarelookingforspecificdatasuchascarbonemissions,thebiggestnumberofrequestsforoursustainabilityreportisfromacademicsconductingresearch,essentiallyusingAngloAmericanPlatinumasabenchmarkforcomparisons.

Perhapsit’sinterestingtonotethattherewereonlyahandfulofshareholderswhoattendedthelastAngloAmericanPlatinumAGM,andwhilewemightquestionwhytherearesofew,theconclusionisthattherearesomanychannelsforengagementthroughouttheyear,thattheydon’tactuallyneedtoattendtheAGM.However,itshouldbenotedthatwe’vebeenatthisformanyyears,andsustainabilityreportingisnowwellentrenchedwithinbusinessstrategy.It’snotthatwebelievethatthisisa‘goodthingtodo’,butratherthatonecannolongerseparatewhatwedofromwhatpeopleexpectofus.

Stiaan Wandrag (Sasol)

In2000,Sasolbecameoneofthefirstthree‘earlyadopters’topublishareportalignedtotheGRIGuidelines(alongsideEskomandSAB).It’snotthatweweren’talwaysreporting,butratherthatwewerereporting(fromthemid-90s)asperwhatwedeterminedtoberelevantandimportant.TheGuidelinesthereforehelpedusestablishabetterframeworkforreporting,aswellasastructurefordatacaptureandmanagementsystems,andhasofferedprocessimprovementwitheverynewversionoftheGuidelines.Byreportingagainstacommonframework,ourGRI-basedreports

| Why report according to GrI continued

The following question and answer section has been compiled using responses offered by other leading reporters:

HB(AA) Hermien Botes (Anglo American)

KI(SB) Karin Ireton (Standard Bank)

NM(AGA) Nilesh Moodley (AngloGold Ashanti)

NOTE

46

• Translatesustainabilityrisksandopportunitiesintofinancialbenefitsforthecompany.

What benefits do you/your company get from reporting in a manner aligned to the GRI Guidelines?HB(AA): Comparabilitybetweencompaniesandwithinsame

companyoveryears.

TheGRIforcestransparency(principleofcompleteness).

Helpsmakethecaseforwhattoreportinternally.Otherwise,thechoicewouldbetooopentomanipulation.

ReportingaccordingtoGRIgivesapracticalperspectiveontheapplicationoftheguidelinesandthereforetheabilitytoinfluencefutureiterations.

KI(SB): Thebenefitsofadisciplinedandwidelyagreedframeworkthatenablesonetoimprovethemanagementofissuesbyelevatingkeydataformanagementpurposesandthenreportthemsuccinctlyandclearlyforthewidergroupofstakeholderstoshareyourthinking.

Thebiggestvalueforcompaniescomesfromthesystematicapplicationofdisciplinedthinkingandapproachestoelicitinganddocumentingmanagementinformationthatisessentialformakingkeydecisions(whetherthosebestrategic/directionaloraboutprioritisationofeffortandcapacityandtheallocationoffinancialresources)andthenactingonit.AnycompanythathadgoodGRIreportingandtreateditproperlyinthiscontexthasextractedsignificantvaluefromit.Thatiswhywebother.Itisnotaboutanexternallyfacingreportthatneedstolookprettytoberead.It’sabouttreatingsustainabilityissueswiththesamematuritythatonetreatsotherissues(suchasfinancialmanagement).Onlywhenonehasgonethroughseveralcyclesofeffectivesustainabilityreportingisthereanydepthtotheindicatorsandthesupportingdataisonetrulyabletounderstandthestrategicimplicationsofwhatunderpinsthedata.

NM(AGA): Industry self-regulation:GRIprovidesastandardplatformforreportingwhichallowstheindustrytomakecomparisonswithinminingandsustainabilityreporting.Also,whenindustryandgovernment/regulatorybodiesshareexpertiseregardingtheapplicationofsustainabledevelopmentbestpractices,practicalandcost-effectiveself-regulatoryprogrammesand/orlegislationwilloftenresult.

Historyshowsthatsustainabledevelopmentprogrammesresultingfromcollaborationbetweenindustryandgovernmentaregenerallypreferable,fromasharepriceperspective,toprogrammesdevelopedthroughisolatedefforts.AnexampleofthisishowtheInternationalCouncilforMiningandMetals(ICMM)requiresminingcompaniestoreportataGRIA+level.

Increasing awareness and knowledge of sustainable practices:Thereareapredefinedsetofreportingindicatorswhichallowsforunderstandingofsustainabilityissuesthroughthereportingprocess,especiallyiftheseindicatorswerepreviouslyneverthoughtofasbeing‘sustainability’indicators.

What, if any, challenges do you/your company face when reporting in a manner aligned to the GRI Guidelines?HB(AA): Someoftheindicatorsarenotmeaningfulfroma

managementperspectiveandrequireadjustment.TheGRI’scoreprinciplemateriality,butexternalpressuresaresuchthatsometimes“moreismore”.Theriskischasingindicatorswithoutanyactualmanagementvalue.

KI(SB): Nonebutwewouldgetchallengesifwedidn’taligntoGRIwhichatthismomentpresentsthebestavailablesetofuniversalsustainabilityreportingguidelines.

NM(AGA): IninstancesthedatareportedisnotavailableatthecorrectlevelofgranularityrequiredforGRIreporting.Thisnecessitatesacross-functionallinkalongmanydifferentdepartments/regions/countriesandsites.Whilethisdoeshavethebenefitoffocusingsustainabilityasalinkage,ratherthanasaseparatefunctionofthebusiness,therearesystematicchallengesatanoperationallevelthatareencounteredwhenmanagingthischange.

What, if any, new trends are you experiencing with respect to your sustainability/integrated reporting (e.g., are analysts starting to pay attention to data within your reports… if so, who)?HB(AA): Thereisbroadermainstreaminterestinthesereports

–bothfromwithincompanies(SDandSDreportingisnolongeragreenyfringedepartment;itiseithertakenseriouslyoratleastseentobetopical).

47

Thismeansthatotherdepartmentsarealsogettingmoreinvolved.

KI(SB): WecontinuetogetmanagementvalueandthequalityoftheSDreportinghasmadetheconceptofintegratedreportingeasier.

NM(AGA): Duetothenatureofmininganditsinterleavedconnectionwithournaturalresourcesandcommunities,thereisalwaysahighamountofscrutinyfromNGOs,analysts,students,etc.,regardingoursustainabilitypractices.Communicationwithregardtothesepracticesinternallyandexternallyhasincreasedyear-on-year.

What, if any, value do you and/or your company gain from seeking independent third party assurance?HB(AA): Theyhelpidentifydatareportinggaps,andadd

adegreeofintegritytotheprocess.WeusetheICMMAssuranceProtocolinwhichourmaterialityprocessisassured–thatforcesustotakequitearobustapproach.

KI(SB): Thetypicalvalueofa3rdpartygivingyouagrillingonanything.Itmakesyouquestionsomeofyourownassumptions,assertionsand“truths”,anddoeshavecredibilitywithauditcommittees.

NM(AGA): Gettinganassurancestatementfromacrediblesourcedoesleaveinvestorswithahigherlevelofconfidenceinthereportsthatareproduced.

What, if anything, would you like to see happen within the reporting space?HB(AA): Formalisationofenvironmentalaccountingandother

metricstoaidcomparability.

Morehonestreporting.Thesamemindsetasinfinancialreporting,wherebywithholdingrelevant(goodorbad)informationfromdecisionmakerswouldbeconsideredwhollyunacceptableandunethical.

GreaterlinksbeingmadebetweenSDandbusinessimpacts.

GreaterlinksbeingmadebetweenSDandcommunity/environmentalimpact(notjustCSIspend,fore.g.,buttheimpactofthatspend).

KI(SB): LessPR,morereporting,morematurityinuseofthe“materialityfocus”,andthe“sowhatpiece”beingusedbetterbycompanies.Thisrequiresmore

seniorfocusthanareportwriter.Thus,lessuseof3rdpartyPRconsultantstowritereports,andgreaterinternalcontrol,or“ownership”,ofthewords,dataandstrategicimplications.

NM(AGA): Overall,therearemanygreatbenefitsfromtheGRIstyleofreportingthathaspenetratedthroughtomanycompanystrategiesandservesasdriversformoresustainablepractices,byhighlightingthegapsincurrentunsustainablepractices.However,ideally,IwouldliketoseecompaniestakingmorecognisanceofthefactthattheGRI,whileuseful,isonlyonepossibleoptionforreporting,andthatthecompanystartsdevelopingmorefocusedreportingmechanismstobeusefulanduniquetotheirowncompany.

Iwouldliketoseemorefocusongettingtheactualambitofsustainabilityreportingrightwithinacompany,beforetheimplementationof‘newer’and‘better’frameworks.Forexample,the‘Integratedreport’providesmuchvalueintheevolutionofsustainabilityreporting,byencouragingthecompanytothinkandtoaddressissueswithconsiderationofbothfinancialandsustainabilityinformationinan‘integrated’way.Theproblemhowever,isthatifonetakesintoconsiderationthathistorically,reportingonsustainabilityissuesshouldhaveprovidedthatcatalysttowards‘integrated’reportinganyway,thenthemovetoanintegratedreportasaseparatereportisalittlelikeviewing‘theemperor’snewclothes’andheraldingthenewinnovationthatshouldhavebeeninexistenceanyway.

Sustainabilityreportingwasfirsttoutedasbeingboth‘forwardandbackwardlooking’,takingintoconsideration‘theneedsofthepresentandfuture’,addressing‘stakeholderneeds’andtakingintoconsideration‘economic,environmentalandsocialconcerns.’Whythenistheresuchadisconnectbetweenthefinancialreportandsustainabilitythata‘newsetofclothes’(i.e.,theintegratedreport)isneeded?Ifareportwasalreadyaddressing‘economic’concernsadequatelytheintegrationofthiswouldbetacitlyimplied.Myquestioninessencewouldbe“Whyissustainabilityreportingnotalreadyintegratedreporting?”andtheanswertothatwillprovide,hopefully,awayofaddressingtheguidingstepstotruesustainablereportingintegrationwithinacompany.

Next Generation Consultants is specialist management consultancy that has extensive experience in sustainable management, development and reporting.

We work with organisations to develop, implement and report on their value-creating strategies and business models to ensure the future sustainability of their businesses.

Our services include:

• Strategy Development, benchmarking, and performance review

• Operational Implementation and integration

• Stakeholder Engagement and management

• Human Rights Impact Assessments and due diligence

• Supply Chain Development, review and reporting

• Life cycle analysis and value chain assessments

• Sustainability and Integrated Reporting

• Training in Reporting, Strategy Setting, Materiality, Indicator Development, Stakeholder Engagement and Management

• Review of reports and stakeholder panels for reporting insight and feedback

Contact Reana Rossouw on +27 11 258 8616 Email: rrossouw@nextgeneration.co.za

Web: www.nextgeneration.co.za

| Why report according to GrI continued

48

| The JSE’s Role in Encouraging Effective Reporting

TheJSE’sroleisthustoputthesustainabilityagendaonthetable,andtohelpidentifykeyissuesthatneedtobeaddressed,buttheSRIIndexshouldnotbewherecompaniesshouldstop.TheSRIindex,throughtheapproachthathasbeentaken–hybridlegislation+anindexrecognisingleadershipinsociallyresponsiblebusinesspractices–hasbeenabletoinformtheextenttowhichcompaniesarewillingtoshareinformationandengagesociety.

Toeffectchange,theJSEhasoptedforathoughtleadershiproleratherthanaregulatory/enforcementone,notingthatSouthAfricancompaniesaretakingsustainabilityissuesseriously,andthattheywanttounderstandhowtheycanenhancetheirvalueproposition.AsCorlinoted,

“The JSE holds the enviable position of being able to facilitate engagements that might not otherwise take place, and that convening power is what we‘d like to leverage in the future, and we were aware of the fact that detailed requirements about GRI reporting and/or King compliance would not achieve any measure of sustainability. It’s the JSE’s position that companies must undergo their own process of determining what is material to them, what they ought to report, and thus what will help create a sustained and responsible return for their shareholders. Regulation isn’t the right way to affect sustainability. Facilitating the discussion and making recommendations is what will affect positive change, and the Index is but one mechanism for informing discussion.”

Thus,therealvalueisnotnecessarilyintheindexitself,butratherintheconversationsthathaveresultedfrom,andaround,theindex–betweentheJSEandcompanies,asmuchasbetweentheJSEandinvestors–andthisisthekeypointthatmustbetakenupastheindexcontinuestoevolve.However,onemustn’tneglectnotingthattheJSE’sownannualreportshaveyettomeettheirownrecommendations.

Forthefourthconsecutiveyear,ourresearchhasnotedthattheJSEhasnotyetrespondedtotheirown–bywayofKingIII–recommendationsforintegratedreportinginaccordancewiththeGRIGuidelines.Measuredamongstthe363companiesreviewed,theJSE’smostrecentreportranks170th,but–notingthatour“GRIComplianceScore”isalmostmeaningless–isshockinglyclosetobeingGRI-compliant,ifonlythey’dbotheredtolook.Withascoreof29.2%,theJSE–atleastquantitatively–hasexceededtheminimumbenchmarkforGRIcompliance,yethasrepeatedlyclaimedthattherehasbeennoneedtoapplytheGuidelinesasofyet.

parallelstheGRIGuidelinesinmanyrespects,thequalityofcompanies’reportshaveimproved.TheevolutionoftheIndextowardsmeasuring‘actualperformance’,ratherthanmerepolicystatementswrittenin‘PR-speak’repletewithhollowandunsubstantiatedassertion,hasessentiallyforcedcompaniestofearbeingignoredbytheIndex.Asaresult,wehavebornewitnesstothewayinwhichcompliancecannotonlychangewhatcompaniessayaboutthewaytheydobusiness:buttheactualwayinwhichtheydoit.

Byforcingcompaniestoreportmoreeffectively,andtomakemoreoftheirpoliciesandproceduredocumentspublic,theIndexhasre-shapedthecorporatehandofcomplianceintoafistforeffectivechange.Byseeminglypunchingabovetheirmoralweight,companieshavebeguntoidentifynotonlytheareasinwhichimprovementisrequired,butalsothepotentialbenefitsofdoingso.Theyhavesteppeduptonewchallenges,andhavebenefittedfromtrainingtheirsystemstocreateatleastthemechanismsforattemptingtoactmoreresponsiblyandthus‘moresustainably’.Theirreportshavebecomebettertargeted,andasaresult,betterwritten,ensuringthattheynolongerfocussolelyontheshareholder.Theynowspeaktoemployees,customers,government,unions,andevenmanagement:thepeoplewhostandthemosttogainfromreading,interpretingandusingannualreportstoeffectpositivechangewithinthebusiness.

WhiletheJSEmaynotnecessarilyhaveintendedforenhancedsustainabilityreportingtobeasignificantspin-offbenefitfromtheIndex,transparencyandaccountabilitywerealwaysamongthedesiredbenefits.However,theIndexcontinuestobeamisunderstoodarrowwithinthequiverofresponsiblebusiness.

Fartoofrequently,companiesinterprettheSRIIndexasanendratherthanameans.It’sviewedasagoalpost,ifnotthescoringmechanismagainstwhichcompaniesmeasuretheir“responsibility”.Errantly,it’sseenastheobjective,ratherthantheguide.

InarecentinterviewwithCorli,IwasremindedthattheJSE’sintentionwasnevertocreatesomeirrelevantpseudo-awardprocess,butrathertoinformdiscussion,debateandprogress.

“Our role isn’t to make a judgment call about whether or not a company is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’, but to help create an environment where investors… or potential investors… are able to make well-informed decisions about whether an investment will be able to generate a sustainable return.”

Launchedin2004,theJSESociallyResponsibleInvestment(SRI)Index–thefirstemergingmarket“non-financial”index–hasbecomesomewhatofatalkingpointformanywithintheintegratedreportingspace.Initiallyestablishedinresponsetodebateabouttheoverall“sustainability”ofbusiness,initscurrentcontext,theaimoftheIndexwastomeasureleadingJSE-listedcompaniesagainstaseriesofreasonablesocial,environmentalandgovernancemetrics.However,itappearsthattheIndexhasgrowntobecomeadrivingforcebehindacompliancetailwaggingaprogressivedog.

Recently,thequestionswereposedregardingnotonlytheeffectivenessoftheIndex,butalsothepossibilitythatitmaybeperceivedashavinglimited–atbest–impactoninvestmentdecisions.Forsome,thequestionislessabouttheroleoftheIndex,andpossiblymoreaboutwhetheritisrequired.ItislessaboutwhethercompaniesarecapableofmeetingtheJSE’sexpectations,andmoreaboutwhetherornotinvestorsandanalystsreallycare.However,adeeperunderstandingofSouthAfrica’sreportingclimate,includingtheemergenceofacompliance-driventrendtowardsperformanceimprovement,suggeststhatourcollectiveinterpretationoftheIndexhasbeenmisguided.

Overthepastfewyears,therehasbeenmeasuredimprovementinnotonlythenumberofGRI-basedreports,butalsointheoverallqualityofreportsbeingproduced.Reports–atfirstunnecessarilylengthy(e.g.,the>400pagetomesproducedbythelikesofAbsaandGoldFields)–havebecomemore‘readerfriendly’,muchlightertocarry,andfrequentlymorerobustintermsofthedatathatstakeholdersmightdeem‘useful’and/or‘relevant’.Thereportshavebecometheoutputsofanannualprocess,ratherthananend-of-yearexercise,andultimatelyhavebecomemanagementtoolsforchangewithintheorganisationstheyaremeanttorepresent.

Althoughthereareanumberofreasonsfordrivingthischange,onewouldberemisstoignorethesignificantroletheJSE’sSRIIndexhasplayed.Yearafteryear,companieshavesubmittedinformationtoEIRIS–theJSE’sresearchpartnerintheIndex–andarguevociferouslyifthereisanymisinterpretationoftheinformationprovided,particularlyasaresultofEIRIS’salmostexclusiverelianceonpubliclyavailableinformation:policies,proceduresandreportstostakeholders.BecausetheIndex

The JSE’s Role in Encouraging Effective Reporting

The following pages are the result of an interview with Corli le Roux, the JSE’s Head of SRI Index and Sustainability (Strategy and Public Policy Division).

NOTE

50

memberlivingnexttoamine.Thus,reportingmustcontinuetoevolveinamannerthatcanhelpredefine‘wealth’,measure‘progress’,andmanage‘risk’.

Thejourneyshouldnotbepushedtowardsaframeworkthatultimatelyconstrainsbusiness,orestablishesa‘one-size-fits-all’templateforreporting,butratherencouragesprocessesforthenaturalevolutionofreporting.Ultimately,IRshouldhelpcompaniesreportless,butprovidebetterdetailaroundwhatisactuallymaterial.Itshouldnotbecomeacompliance-basedapproach,oratick-boxexercise.Theriskiswhetherornotinvestorswillultimatelyhaveaccesstotheinformationrequiredtofullyunderstandhowvalueiscreatedand/orprotected.Inthisregard,theJSEremainscommittedtoensuringthattheengagementoccurs.

In her own words, this is what Corli believes companies can expect from the JSE in the next while:“The JSE will be rolling out a number of strategic initiatives that will demonstrate its commitment to advancing the sustainability agenda, both in terms of the JSE’s own position on sustainability and how the JSE wishes to inform the space. We’re not yet ready to disclose the detail, but there will definitely be more discussion and engagement with people throughout the investment value chain, ultimately to inform how the JSE repositions itself as a mechanism for effective change.

The SRI index is set to undergo significant change over the next five years, starting with a publication expected later in this year, and the JSE is looking at other product lines – including the carbon off-set project, in partnership with BUSA (set for outcomes to start in the next couple of months) – that the JSE is preparing to roll out to meet the needs identified by its many stakeholders.”

With respect, Corli has clearly stated the following,“The JSE’s revised sustainability strategy is still being developed. We need to define what sustainability forces/issues will impact our business, our clients’ businesses and what the JSE needs to do in order to adapt and to facilitate the ability of others to adapt. Our approach has been to take a step back and consider what our impacts and risks are before actually settling on a process for reporting. We haven’t reported according to the GRI because we haven’t felt that we’ve done enough to actually apply the guidelines.”

Apparently,thechallengeresidesintheuniquepositionoftheJSEasapotentintermediary.Inordertoreporteffectively,theJSEmustfirstfindthecorrectbalancebetweentheinwardandoutwardfocus,lookingnotonlyathowtheJSEremainssustainable,buthowitcaninfluencethesustainabilityofothers.

Ultimately,thesustainabilityoftheJSEisinextricablylinkedtothesustainabilityofitsconstituentcompanies,andthusofthemarkets.

Althoughstillsomewhatdisappointingforsomeonesuchasmyself,someonewhowasfirstintroducedtotheJSEwhenImanagedKPMG’sassuranceprocessofthefirstSRIIndex,thelogicintheJSE’sargumentisneitherflawed,norentirelytheirown.ThelikesofSasolandAngloAmericanPlatinumhaveinvestedyearstoestablishmeaningfulsustainabilitypolicies,proceduresandsystems,whileoperatinginindustriesthataremuchmoreattheforefrontofsustainabilityleadership(forobviousreasons).Moreover,neithercompanyhasyetbeenquotedsayinganythingotherthantheyarestilllearning,changingandenhancingtheirreportingsystems.Thus,itisperhapsthemoreprudentviewthattheJSEcouldbegivenatleastonemorechancetostartwalkingitsowntalk.

Nonetheless, the JSE will continue to inform reporting.Thefactthatthediscussionaboutintegratedreportingisoccurringontheglobalscalethatithas,isnotwithouttheobviouslinkstothewayinwhichtheworldhasbecome–inmanyrespects–oneinter-connectedmarket.ThetravailsofEuropeimpedeprogressinChina,justasunemploymentintheUShasdeleteriousimpactsonthestrengthoftheRand.Investors,regardlessofwheretheyreside,havebecomemuchbetterconnectedtotheirinvestments,andareinstantaneouslyconnectedtomattersthatcouldpotentiallyaffecthowcompaniesmanageintrinsicand/orexplicitwealth.TechnologyisconnectingnotonlytheinstitutionalinvestorandtheCEO,butalsothesmall-scaleinvestorandthecommunity

51

BastionGraphics

Est. 1982

For 30 years Bastion Graphics has consistently set the service standard in corporate reporting, as testi� ed by the numerous awards our clients win. Our integrated / investor suitcase consists of gap analysis, peer group assessments, report structuring for GRI and King, writing skills, design, � nancial adverts, analyst presentations and web design.

Bastion Graphics – specialists in corporate reporting since 1982

‘blue chip’ partner of choice for integrated annual and sustainability reporting

integrated reporting formula

--+ +

Contact: adele@bastion.bz Tel: +27 11 7785800

PRETO

RIA

PORT

LAN

D C

EMEN

T C

OM

PAN

Y LIM

ITED

INT

EGR

ATED

AN

NU

AL R

EPORT

20

11

FOCUSEDINTEGRATED ANNUAL REPORT 2011

Integrated annual report 2011

Au

The B

idvest G

roup

Limited

An

nu

AL in

Te

Gr

AT

ed

re

po

rT

2011

THE POWER OF MANY

The Bidvest Group Limited

ANNUAL INTEGRATED REpoRT 2011

Shift performance, grow sustainablyIntegrated Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Eskom H

oldings SOC

Limited Integrated R

eport for the year ended 31 March 2012

Sustainability

through

Responsibility

Integrated annual report 2011

Volume 1: Integrated review

Sustainability Sustainability

Integrated annual report 2011

Barloworld Lim

ited integrated annual report 2011

MTN Group Limited

Sustainability Report – for the year ended 31 December 2011

Detailed report complementing MTN Group Integrated Report 31 December 2011

.beyondWelcome to possibility

resourceful innovation winning formulagreat team service expertise

DISCLOSUREDISCLOSURE

BASTION 19.06.2012.indd 3 2012/06/28 2:25 PM

Benefits of GRI-Based Reporting in the NGO Sector: A Call to Action!

BastionGraphics

Est. 1982

For 30 years Bastion Graphics has consistently set the service standard in corporate reporting, as testi� ed by the numerous awards our clients win. Our integrated / investor suitcase consists of gap analysis, peer group assessments, report structuring for GRI and King, writing skills, design, � nancial adverts, analyst presentations and web design.

Bastion Graphics – specialists in corporate reporting since 1982

‘blue chip’ partner of choice for integrated annual and sustainability reporting

integrated reporting formula

--+ +

Contact: adele@bastion.bz Tel: +27 11 7785800

PRETO

RIA

PORT

LAN

D C

EMEN

T C

OM

PAN

Y LIM

ITED

INT

EGR

ATED

AN

NU

AL R

EPORT

20

11

FOCUSEDINTEGRATED ANNUAL REPORT 2011

Integrated annual report 2011

Au

The B

idvest G

roup

Limited

An

nu

AL in

Te

Gr

AT

ed

re

po

rT

2011

THE POWER OF MANY

The Bidvest Group Limited

ANNUAL INTEGRATED REpoRT 2011

Shift performance, grow sustainablyIntegrated Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Eskom H

oldings SOC

Limited Integrated R

eport for the year ended 31 March 2012

Sustainability

through

Responsibility

Integrated annual report 2011

Volume 1: Integrated review

Sustainability Sustainability

Integrated annual report 2011

Barloworld Lim

ited integrated annual report 2011

MTN Group Limited

Sustainability Report – for the year ended 31 December 2011

Detailed report complementing MTN Group Integrated Report 31 December 2011

.beyondWelcome to possibility

resourceful innovation winning formulagreat team service expertise

DISCLOSUREDISCLOSURE

BASTION 19.06.2012.indd 3 2012/06/28 2:25 PM

integrated annual report 2011

education

Written by IRASDesigned by Studio 5

Not assured1st Report

Written by CotlandsDesigned by HKLMAssured by KPMG

8th Report

Forthosestillstrugglingtocometogripswithintegratedreporting,theremaybelittlesolaceemanatingfromthefactthatthreecharitiesproduceGRI-basedintegratedreports,summarilyprovingthatreportingisnottheassumedplaygroundofthebigandwealthycompanies.Granted,allthreereportare–inonewayoranother–linkedtotheexperiencestatementofIntegratedReporting&AssuranceServices(IRAS),buteachhas–independentofeachother–adoptedtheprinciplesassociatedwithtransparencyandaccountabilitytoawholenewlevel.

Oftheabove,Cotlandsisthelongest-servingNGOrepresentative(theothertwoare1sttimereporters),butthelessonsofeachorganisationareequallyimportant,asaretheexperiencesofthespecialistconsultantsdonatingtheirtimetoassistworthycauses.

In the words of Alinda (designer) at Studio 5,Little Eden is a heart-warming organisation. To think of what they do, the unimaginable challenges they face, the things we don’t even know exist. The people who need 24 hour care from teeth to toes: not just physical but also mental/emotional care! The wonderful people working at Little Eden need to be cherished and appreciated!

Donating one’s time, skills and experience to an organisation such as Little Eden is both a challenge and a gift. On the one hand, it’s very difficult to put together a report for an organisation that is doing such amazing work for people who offer help to people who desperately need good care. It’s difficult to work with some of the pictures, and to read some of the stories about how hard it is for Little Eden to get the funding they need to offer the care they do. But on the other hand, such a project is a welcome relief from corporate tedium.

Big companies are very strict about what can or cannot be done with their reports. They have strict style guidelines, and don’t allow designers to be as creative as they would like, whereas a Little Eden is much more open to style recommendations that take ‘their words’ and turn them into ‘their story’.

Working with an organisation such as Little Eden is great for me, as a designer, but also for a company like Studio 5, because it makes us all feel as if we’re not just working a job, but making a difference. In a way, we hope that by giving of ourselves, or our abilities, those within Little Eden will know that we respect and value them.

In the words of Jackie (CEO) at Cotlands,Producing GRI-based integrated reports has been a very good learning process about what stakeholders – primarily donors – are interested in, and thus what we need to monitor, measure and report on. The reports have helped us move from collecting meaningless data to focus our attention on what is important to us, and have helped us improve the quality of the services we provide. In order to produce meaningful reports, Cotlands has had to improve our monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes, and that’s the reason why you report. It’s not about giving meaningless data, but rather about focusing on what you need to do throughout the year in order to be able to report back to stakeholders at the end of the year about what you have achieved.

Reporting is about creating systems and controls that allow you to manage many things within the organisation, including some things that may not seem as obvious as others. Last year we had an undiagnosed water leak that cost us, and thus our donors, thousands of Rands, and it might have continued to go unnoticed if we weren’t measuring and monitoring our environmental performance (even if the environmental issues are not necessarily ‘material’ to Cotlands).

Written by Little EdenDesigned by Studio 5

Assured by IRAS1st Report

Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Benefits of GRI-Based Reporting in the NGO sector: A Call to Action!

54

For me to give and expect nothing back, to sow into the lives of children who may never get the same opportunities I have, and to positively influence generations to come, there is no greater reward. I believe that all who are in a position to receive should freely give in love.

In the future…

Itisthecollectivehopeofallthreecurrent“NGOreporters”thatmorecharitieswillproducemeaningfulintegratedannualreports.However,we’reallawareoftheinherentlimitationsofcharities–time,accesstonon-coreskillsandavailablecash–thatwillrestrictfurthergrowthinthissector,unlessotherscometotheparty.

Please help!

Forallthoserecognisedas‘OtherSustainabilityReportingPractitioners’–whetherincludedinIRAS’sdatabaseof“OtherSRPs”ornot–thisisyouropportunitytomakeameaningfuldifferenceinthelivesofthosemuchlessfortunatethanweare.Asanauthor,youcouldwriteareport.Asadesigner,youcouldturnwordsintoeffectivestories.Asanassuranceprovider,youcouldprovidecredibilitytotheinformationcontainedwithinthereport.

Thetruthis,timeisthegreatestgiftwe’realloffered,andthusthegreatestgiftwecansharewithothers.Ourtimeislimited–ultimatelytoanextentthatwe’llonlycometoappreciatewhenit’sup–anditsvalueisembodiedwithintheskillsandtalentswe’veaccumulatedthusfar.Sure,youcoulddonateaRandortwo,butthevalueofyourtimewillalwaysbegreaterthanthecashyoumightbeabletogive.Moreover,theofferingoftimeisnotazerosumgame.Rather,thegivingoftimewillbenefitYOU–thedonor–asmuch,ifnotmore,thanthoseyoumightassumetobehelping.AsAlinda–ofStudio5–sopoignantlystated,“…itmakesusallfeelasifwe’renotjustworkingajob,butmakingadifference.”

Pick a charity!

Write their next annual report!

Design it in the most effective way!

Assure it!

Therearewaysforallofus–asreportingpractitioners–toputourtalentstogoodwork,andItrustthatthe5theditiontothisannualreviewofGRI-basedreports(nextyear)willincludefarmorereportsfromwithintheNGOsector.

Theseincluded:

• Identifyingadditionalmonitoringandevaluationdatamanagementsystemsrequiredtogeneratetheinformationrequiredtoproduceameaningfulreport;

• GainingaclearerpictureofthechallengesSMYLehasfacedinovercomingobjectionstoprovidingfunding(e.g.,thatamusicprogrammeisa‘nicetohave’,evenifSMYLeismoreofaneducationprojectthananartsandcultureone);

• Identifyingadditionalfinancialcontrolproceduresrequiredtomaximisetheauditabilityofourfinancialrecords(e.g.,forcingallofourcommunity-basedsupplierstoreceiveelectronicbankingpayments,ratherthancash);

• Recognisingtheneedtoemployfull-timesupportstaff–regardlessofthecost–tomanagefundraisingandadministrativesupport;and,

• AcceptingthatthesustainabilityofSMYLecannotbeindefinitely,andinextricably,linkedtothesustainabilityofIRAS.

AlthoughnotanappropriatevenuetodiscussthemeritsofIRAS’sroleinSMYLe,itcannotgounsaidthatSMYLeisattheheartofIRAS,andthusourcommitmenttoofferingmanagement–andthusreporting–supporttoSMYLeisforegoneconclusion.SMYLeprovidesIRASwithameaningfulplatformforourteamtolearnhowtowriteintegratedannualreports:aprerequisiteskillforanyonewishingtoassurereports(i.e.,youcan’tmeaningfullyassureareportunlessyou’veactuallywrittenone).SMYLeallowsustotesttheoriesabouttheapplicabilityoftheGRIGuidelines,andoffersalow-riskcasestudyinwhichreportingboundariescanbepushed.

In the words of Cyril (designer) at Studio 5,“But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (1John3:17)

I’ve often wondered how my God-given skills and abilities as a graphic designer can make a difference in society, and touch the lives of people who are less fortunate than I am, particularly given that ‘design’ is an intangible gift that one often forgets can be donated. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the SMYLe annual report and CD design project landed on my desk, as this was the perfect opportunity for me to give.

In most cases, a pro bono job can have lesser creative restrictions than a paying one. As with many of these assignments, the SMYLe report was a designer’s dream job, as I was able to freely express myself creatively through layout, typography, concept development and building a relationship with my client – and enjoy it!

NGOs need to consider ethical fundraising, and to disclose who the top donors are, which ensures that fundraising occurs in a manner consistent with societal expectations. Cotlands doesn’t have a particular problem if the likes of British American Tobacco (BAT) wants to donate money, but it is a reasonable expectation that Cotlands would disclose where its money is coming from, simply because other donors may have concerns about a BAT-like company.

In the words of Lucy (CEO) at Little Eden,Little Eden adopted the GRI Guidelines almost exclusively because they offer an internationally recognised system of reporting. They encompass a wide range of reporting parameters and encourage NGOs to take a fresh look at what they need to be reporting on. Often what we see as ordinary, or not necessary, is very relevant to the reader and needs to be highlighted. It encourages openness and transparency: absolute essentials in the NGO arena. Being internationally accepted, an Annual Report based on such guidelines assists NGOs with fundraising in both local and international arenas. It provides assurance to funders, backed by a body of verifiable data. Little Eden wants to be best in class, and a role model for other NGOs, encouraging them to be open and accountable to funders and the public for their activities. Ultimately, all NGOs should adopt an open reporting structure based on the GRI Guidelines, while corporate and/or large individual funders should place more emphasis on the notion of “sustainability of the NGO” before committing resources to what often appear to be “lost causes”.

We most certainly intend to use our report as part and parcel of our fund raising activities. We envisage that it will be of significant importance, especially in individual funding applications to corporates and larger individual donors. A ‘hidden’ benefit is that we have become much more aware of previous shortcomings (e.g., not monitoring service activities and utilities). These were merely taken for granted. We are now aware and monitor such data, which we believe will give management a better handle on what is actually happening. Moreover, we believe that now people have seen our report – external stakeholders and the management team within Little Eden – there will be no fear about how the next report will be produced. Rather, the team is excited about being able to produce an even better report next year.

WithrespecttoSMYLe(theSowetoMarimbaYouthLeague),Icanassureyouthatevenwith13years’experienceinsustainabilityreportingandassurance,therewereanumberof‘lessonslearned’fromtheprocessofdevelopingSMYLe’sfirstreport.

Benefits of GRI-Based Reporting in the NGO sector: A Call to Action!

55

| Getting the Data RightCommunity members in the Zandspruijt Informal Settlement (ZIS) were the recipients of IRAS’s 2011 ‘Making Reporting Matter’ blanket drive. Attendees of our report launch brought warm blankets that were distributed to community leaders in ZIS, a community rocked by service delivery protests and xenophobic attacks.

IfreportersrepeatedlystatethatoneoftheprimarybenefitsoftheGRIGuidelinesis“comparability”,thenonemightassumethatcompanies–atleastthosethathavebeenapplyingtheGuidelinesforafewyearsnow–wouldhavefiguredouthowtocollect,collateandreportkeysustainabilitydatainaconsistentandcomparablemanner.However,thecurrentevidencesuggeststhatveryfewcompanies(eventhoseobtainingindependentthirdpartyassuranceovercoreindicators)arepayingcloseenoughattentiontotheirreportstoensurethatthedataisaccurate,consistent,completeandreliable(thefundamentalquartetofassurancetests).

Perhapsthebestexamplecanbedrawnfromsafetystatistics(specifically,LostTimeInjuryFrequencyRate).

Inorderfordatatobetrulycomparable,companiesmustchoosetouseasimilarcalculationmethodology.Indoingso,thereportingentitymustdeterminethefollowing:

• Whatconstitutes“aninjury”,andwillinjuryratesincludesuchthingsasworkplaceassociatedillnesses(e.g.,doesthecompany

reportallinjuries/illnesses,ormerelythoseinjuriesthatrequiresignificantmedicalattentionand/orresultinlosttime)?

• Willsafetybereportedintermsofa‘LostTimeInjuryFrequencyRate’,or‘LTIFR’,‘RecordableCaseRate’,ora‘TotalRecordableCaseRate’?

• Willthefrequencyratebecalculatedrelativeto1000000personhoursworked,or200000hours,notingthat200000isroughlyequalto100‘personyears’(i.e.,100employeesworkingastandard40-hourweekfor50weeksoftheyear)?

Inshort,itmustberememberedthatinordertoreporteffectively,onemusta)havedata;b)ensurethatthedataisaccurate;and,c)ensurethatthedataiscomparable.

Unfortunately,ourreviewofthedatacontainedwithinthemostrecentreportsforcompaniesinthe‘Energy&NaturalResources’,‘Metals&Mining’and‘Banking&FinancialServices’sectorshasessentiallyconfirmedoneofSasol’sconcernsaboutthecurrentstateofreportinginSouthAfrica:thedataisn’tcomparable.

OnequickglanceatthegraphusingavailableLTIFRdatabegsobviousquestions,suchas“HowtheheckhasFirstRand,StandardBankandAbsabecomemoredangerousthan10companiesmostofuswoulddeem“highrisk”,includingSasol,AngloAmericanplcandEskom?Infairness,theanswerisimbeddedinthefollowingtables,populatedusingtheinformationcontainedwithinthereportswereviewed.

Firstly,itshouldbenotedthatveryfewofthe“non-mining”companiesprovidedadequatedatatomakeacomparison(i.e.,anactualLTIFR).While21ofthe24‘Metals&Mining’companiesprovidedrates(and/orthedatatogeneratefrequencyrates),onlySasolwithinthe‘Energy&NaturalResources’sector(1of4companies)providedadequateinformation,asdidonly7ofthe14‘Banking&FinancialServices’companies.Granted,itmightmakesense–giventhenatureofminingasa“dangerous”activity–butperhapstheavailabledatahintsthattheChamberofMinesneedstoredirectatleastsomeofthenegativecriticismontootherindustries.

Getting the Data Right

NOTE: All of the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rates in the graph have been ‘normalised’ to a standard of “injuries per 200 000 person hours worked”.

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate is calculated by dividing the number of “lost time injuries” (i.e., “LTIs”, those that result in the loss of at least one shift… starting with the day following the day the injury occurred) by the total number of person hours worked, divided by 200 000, in accordance with our primary school math rules about BEDMAS (brackets before exponents, division, multiplication, addition and subtraction). Thus…

LTIFR = # of LTIs ÷ (# of Hours Worked ÷ 200 000)

NOTES

58

Reporting Entity (Company Name)Total number of employees

Hours worked (reported)

Hours worked (calculated)

Number of lost time injures

LTIFR/DTIFR/TRIR

(reported)

LTIFR/DTIFR/TRIR (calculated) Which rate?

Per 200 000 or 1 000 000

person hours?Energy and Natural Resources LA1 LA7 LA7 LA7SasolLtd 32735 NotReported 59708640 379 0.37 1.27 RCR 200000SappiLtd 14862 NotReported 27108288 NotReported 0.87 NotPossible LTIFR 200000 Europe 6025 NotReported 10989600 Notclearlyreported 70.00 1.27 LTIFR 200000 NorthAmerica 2224 NotReported 4056576 25 0.96 1.23 LTIFR 200000 SouthernAfrica 6378 NotReported 11633472 NotReported 0.55 NotPossible LTIFR 200000MondiLtd 41400 NotReported 75513600 NotReported 0.92 NotPossible TRCR 200000EskomHoldings 41778 NotReported 76203072 NotReported 0.47 NotPossible LTIFR 200000Banking & Financial Services LA1 LA7 LA7 LA7AfricanBankInvestments 15281 NotReported 27872544 20 NotReported 0.14 NotReported NotReportedSanlamLtd 11643 NotReported 21236832 NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedStandardBankGroupLtd 52127 NotReported 95079648 289 NotReported 0.61 NotReported NotReportedNedbankGroupLtd 28494 NotReported 51973056 77 NotReported 0.30 NotReported NotReportedAbsaGroupLtd 39659 NotReported 72338016 NotReported 0.55 NotPossible DFIR NotReportedLibertyHoldingsLtd 8523 NotReported 15545952 NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedBrimstoneInvestmentCorp 3350 NotReported 6110400 NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedSantamLtd NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedMMIHoldingsLtd 15644 NotReported 28534656 30 NotReported 0.21 NotReported NotReportedInvestec NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedSasfinHoldingsLtd 583 NotReported 1063392 NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedFirstRandLtd 34612 NotReported 63132288 216 NotReported 0.68 NotReported NotReportedEfficientGroup 81 NotReported 147744 0 0.00 0.00 NotReported NotReportedFinbondGroupLtd 459 NotReported 837216 NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedMetals & Mining LA1 LA7 LA7 LA7GoldFieldsLtd 46378 NotReported 84593472 NotReported 0.94 NotPossible LTIFR 1000000Lonmin 37360 NotReported 68144,640 419 0.94 1.23 LTIFR 1000000AfricanRainbowMinerals(ARM) 28704 NotReported 52356096 109 0.43 0.42 LTIFR 200000XstrataSouthAfrica 13777 54485152 25129248 84 0.31 0.67 LTIFR 1000000AngloAmericanplc 146303 NotReported 266856672 NotReported 0.64 NotPossible LTIFR 200000AngloAmericanPlatinumLtd 58541 NotReported 106778784 12 1.27 0.02 LTIFR 200000KumbaIronOreLtd 11898 NotReported 21701952 17 0.08 0.16 LTIFR 200000NorthamPlatinumLtd 10096 NotReported 18415104 NotReported 0.65 NotPossible LTIFR 200000HarmonyGold 39440 NotReported 71938560 NotReported 0.33 NotPossible LTIFR 1000000MerafeResourcesLtd 12955 NotReported 23629920 NotReported 0.25 NotPossible LTIFR 1000000AngloGoldAshantiLtd 61242 NotReported 111705408 NotReported 0.25 NotPossible LTIFR 1000000ExxaroResourcesLtd 10513 NotReported 19175712 NotReported 0.20 NotPossible LTIFR 200000ImpalaPlatinum 36119 NotReported 65881056 NotReported 0.99 NotPossible LTIFR 1000000EvrazHighveldSteel&Vanadium 2386 NotReported 4352064 20 1.57 0.92 LTIFR 1000000RoyalBafokengPlatinumLtd 7942 NotReported 14486208 NotReported 0.90 NotPossible LTIFR 200000ArcelorMittalSouthAfricaLtd 9430 NotReported 17200320 56 1.24 0.65 LTIFR 1000000DRDGoldLtd 6875 NotReported 12540000 NotReported 3.27 NotPossible LTIFR 1000000AquariusPlatinumLtd 10024 NotReported 18283776 NotReported 0.50 NotPossible DIFR 200000WitwatersrandConsolidatedGold 18 NotReported 32832 0 NotReported 0.00 NotReported NotReportedWesizwePlatinumLtd 42 NotReported 76608 0 0.00 0.00 LTIFR NotReportedAssoreLtd 17430 NotReported 33472224 71 NotReported 0.44 LTIFR 200000EasternPlatinumLtd 3220 NotReported 5873280 NotReported 0.66 NotPossible LTIFR 1000000KeatonEnergyHoldingsLtd 257 862,705 468768 NotReported NotReported NotPossible NotReported NotReportedRichardsBayMinerals 2400 NotReported 4377600 12 0.28 0.55 LTIFR NotReported

59

Theover-archingproblemwiththedataweextractedfromthereportsisthatit’sneithercompletenorconsistentandcertainlynotcomparable!

InthecaseofSappi,comparabilityevenwithinthecompanyisimpossibleduetothelackofconsistencyinthewaydataisreportedwithinthe‘SafetyPerformance’sectionoftheironlinesustainabilityreport(http://www.sappi.com/group/Sustainability/SDR11_People.pdfp.13).WhiletheLTIFRispresentedinaconsistentmannerforEuropeandNorthAmerica(settingasideanobvioustypographicalerrorsuggestinganLTIFRof70.00)–withthenumberofemployeesandthenumberofLTIsgiven–theinformationforSouthernAfricaisinexplicablysplitforemployeesandcontractors,ratherthanacombinedLTIFR,whichoneisledtoassumeisthecorporatestandardfortheotherterritories.Furthercomplicatingmattersisthefactthatauseroftheirreportisn’tgivenenoughinformationtodoSappi’sworkforthem,andusethebasedatatocalculatetheLTIFR.Intheir‘OurDiverseWorkforce’section(p.5),thenumbersofemployeesaregivenrelativetothethreemaingeographicalareas,butthereisnobreakdownofstaffintermsofthosethatare‘permanent’andthosethatare‘contractors’,thuseliminatingthepossibilityofcalculatingtherateontheirbehalf(aswasdonefortheirEuropeanoperations).

So what?Perhapsthistiradeappearsmisguidedand/orsuperfluous,butitwouldn’tbeifinvestorsandanalystswereactuallyusingintegratedannualreports(orsustainabilityreportsinconjunctionwithannualreports).Thefactisthatinanenvironmentwherethesafetyofworkersisasignificantboneofcontentionbetweencompaniesandtheirunions–andgovernment,particularlyinthecaseofminingcompanies–safetyisnota‘nicetoreport’,butclearindicatorofpotentialimpactsonfinancialperformance.

Intheminingsector,government–particularlytheDepartmentofMineralResources(DMR)–hasescalatedthefrequencyatwhichtheyareissuing‘Section54notices’thatshutdownminesintheeventofasafetyincident(injuryorsignificantnearmiss).Indoingso,theyburdentheaffectedcompanywithpayingwageswithouttheabilitytogenerateincomethroughminingactivities,andthereforeexposetheminetoasignificantcomponentofthe‘truecostofsafety’.Thus,anyanalystworththeirsaltwouldundertaketounderstandthe“BirdPyramid”(seeimageatright).

Inoverlysimplisticterms,FrankBirdarguedin1969thatfatalaccidentsarefarlessfrequentthanseriousandnon-seriousinjuries,andmuchlessfrequentthanincidentswemightrefertoas“nearmisses”(i.e.,thosethatcouldhave…butdidn’t…result

inaninjury).Thus,toreducethepotentialforafatalitytooccur,companiesmustmanagethefactorsthatcanleadto“incidents”and/oraccidents.

SeriousAccidents

Incidents600

30

10

1Fatal Accidents

Accidents

AlthoughSusanShabangu–MinisterofMineralResources–hasbeenquotedassayingthat“we should not attribute a value to safety”,thefactisthatinbusiness,allimpactsandaffectsarecalculatedintermsofcost,andultimatelyintermsofshareholderwealth.Thus,itshouldbeareasonablereportingexpectationthatcompaniesplacegreaterattentiononnotonly“reportingdata”,but“reportingtherightdata”.However,itappearsasiftoofewcompaniesvaluetheroleeffectivesustainabilitydatamanagementsystemsplaywithinreporting,inasmuchastheyhavenotacceptedthatassuranceisnotaboutobtaininga“GRI+”,orapoorlywordedassurancestatementtofilltwomorepagesofthereport,butaboutusingthereportingprocessasamechanismforcontinuousimprovement.

Inthefuture,onewouldhopetoseesignificantimprovementinthereportingofmeaningfuldatabyallcompanies,adheringtooneofourmostimportant“goldenrulesofeffectivereporting”:Let the data tell the story!Ratherthanwriteareportusingill-informedassumptionsaboutperformance,addingindataas/whenitbecomesavailableattheendofthereportingperiod,companiesmuststarttomonitorkeysustainabilityindicatordatathroughouttheyear,anduseitasthefoundationfortellingrelevantstories.Trendsandanomaliesindatamustbeidentifiedandexplained,and–wherepossible–conductmeaningfulbenchmarkingexercisestoconfirmorrefutemanagementassertionsofperformanceexcellence(vis-à-vistheeffectiveexampleSasolcontinuestoset).

| Getting the data right continued

Enlightened Energy provides clean and sustainable energy solutions throughout Africa.

To facilitate a new – ‘enlightened’ – renewable energy paradigm, shaped by a green economy which combines sound economics with respect for the earth and its people.

Our services are driven by solutions conceived using the knowledge and expertise of local people, applied to local conditions.

Finance and Investment• Clean energy project development & finance

• International climate finance

• Mitigation and adaptation finance

Energy and Carbon Management• Energy/GHG assessment & GHG monitoring,

reporting an verification (MRV)

• GHG-emissions reduction action plan design & implementation

• Carbon tax value at risk

• Mitigation and adaptation program design & evaluation

Trade and Market Analysis• Clean energy product imports & integration

• Market/trade analysis on the effects of low carbon regulation on cross border trade

Contact us:Kimberly van Niekerk+27 (0) 82 853 6533kvanniekerk@enlenergy.comwww.enlenergy.com

Enlightened Energy

60

| The Push Towards More Effective Carbon Disclosure

The Push Towards More Effective Carbon Disclosure

ForthoserecentlyrelocatedfromaSterkfonteincave,“carbondisclosure”isthepracticebywhichcompaniesmeasuretheirimpacton“globalwarming”–orthedeleteriousimpactsassociatedwithincreasesintheEarth’satmospherictemperature–throughthecalculationoftonnesofcarbondioxideequivalents.Thepracticeofdisclosingcarbonemissionsiseffectively‘managed’bythe“CarbonDisclosureProject”,or“CDP”,andisavoluntarysetofprinciplesbywhichcompaniesareencouragedtomeasure,monitorandreportthetotalvolumeofcarbontheyemitintotheatmosphereasadirect,orindirect,resultoftheiractivities.Nobody‘demands’thatwemeasuresuchthings–atleastnotyet–butexperienceisdictatingthatcarbondisclosure,particularlyinaneconomybefuddledwithrapidlyexpandingenergyprices,islessaboutappearingtodo“agoodthing”andmoreaboutmakingabusinessmorecosteffective,andthusmore“sustainable”,whileatleastpretendingtocareaboutthefutureofourplanet.

ToanyonefollowingtrendsinsustainabilityreportinginSouthAfrica,there’snosurpriseinthestatementthattherehasbeenarapidriseofcarbondisclosureinSouthAfricaoverthepastfewyears.However,there’sanabundanceofspeculationaroundwhat’sdrivingthereportingofenergyconsumptionanditsresultingemissions.Beitcorporateconscience,pendingcarbontaxation,energyefficiencyandcostreductionorsimpleboxticking,there’snooneanswerforallcompanies.However,theprocesshasbeensetinmotionandSouthAfrica’sparticipationintheCarbonDisclosureProject(CDP)istobeapplauded.Of3700oftheworld’slargestcorporationssurveyedin60countriesbytheCDP,SouthAfricaboaststhesecondhighestresponserate.In2011,83outof100topJSEcompaniesrespondedtotheCarbonDisclosureProject.

Accordingtotheirwebsite,theCDPis“anindependentnot-for-profitorganisationworkingtodrivegreenhousegasemissionsreductionandsustainablewaterusebybusinessandcities.”TheCDPhaschallengedglobalcorporationstomeasureandreporttheircarbonemissions.Theinitiativeaimstoencourageanintegrationofclimatechangerelatedaspectsintotheirbusinessstrategy.

Background ArecentpublicationbyCeres,OxfamandCalvertInvestmentsoffersguidanceforcompaniesandinvestorsonthedisclosureandmanagementofclimateimpacts.Thereportstatesthat“virtually every sector of the economy faces risks from the short- and long- term physical effects of climate change – impacts across the entire business value chain, from raw materials through to the end users.”

Intermsofauditing,materialityhasbecomepartofthefabricofsustainablebusiness.Thefinancialteamhasinvitednon-financialdataintoitscamp,toproveequityinregardstotheroleitplaysintheintegratedoverviewofthecompany’sperformance.Sourcessuggestthat“informationismaterialifitsomissionormisstatementcouldinfluencetheeconomicdecisionofuserstakenonthebasisofthefinancialstatements.”

Materialityisdependentonthesizeoftheitemorerrorjudgedintheparticularcircumstancesofitsomissionormisstatement.Therefore,materialitydrawsaboundaryorthresholdasopposedtobeingprimarilyindicativeofthequalitativecharacteristicinformationissaidtorequire,ifitistoprovidevalue.

StellenboschUniversity’sCorporateSchoolofGovernance,UNEPandDeloitterecentlyteameduptoexploreThe Future of Corporate Reporting. Inthereport,UNEPDirectorSylvieLemmetintroducestheimportanceofextra-financialmeasurementandaccountability.

AccordingtoSylvie,theUNConferenceonSustainableDevelopment(Rio+20)providedanunparalleledopportunitytogloballytransformthecurrenteconomicparadigmintoamodelfocusedonenhancinghumanwell-being,whilevaluingplanetaryboundariesandenvironmentalconfines.Sheexplainedthat“in order to facilitate this transformation, we need to measure what matters, so that we are able to understand whether we are making progress.”

CO2e Emissions per companyCompany Tonnes CO2e

Eskom 230300000

Sasol 74836000

AngloAmericanplc 18800000

ArcelorMittal 15450000

XstrataSouthAfrica 9300000

MerafeResources 7380840

GoldFields 6600000

AngloAmericanPlatinum 6022000

AngloGoldAshanti 4445000

ImpalaPlatinum 4023000

RichardsBayMinerals 3850000

HarmonyGold 3715000

ExxaroResources 2484000

Assore 2020999

Lonmin 1648343

KumbaIronOre 910000

DRDGold 691138

NorthamPlatinum 635468

AquariusPlatinum 399044

RoyalBafokengPlatinum 295801

AbsaGroup 359038

FirstRand 280665

NedbankGroup 163518

StandardBankGroup 160190

EasternPlatinum 151532

AfricanBankInvestments 98783

Sanlam 50281

Liberty 47422

MMI 36295

20 companies from the combined Metals & Mining and Energy & Natural Resources sectors, nine companies in the Banking & Financial Services sector provided comparable data for carbon emissions.

This section has been written in partnership with Juanique Pretorius of Global Carbon Exchange (GCX). GCX is an end-to-end sustainability consultancy and training provider, with services spanning strategy + policy; measuring + monitoring; process optimisation; reporting + communication; and sustainability software. www.globalcarbonexchange.com

NOTE

“Given that this is a journey within a context of many competing socioeconomic challenges, there is no doubt that an 83% response rate by leading South African companies must be applauded.”Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa

62

Inessence,thechallengeliesinshiftingthewayprogressisperceived,businessisdone,andfinancialdecisionsaremadeinordertoprioritisesocialandenvironmentalconsiderations.Clearly,carbonmeetsthematerialitytest,andisbecominganotherfactorwithinamoreholisticcalculationofthetruecostofdoingbusiness,andreportinginaccordancewiththeCDPisanimportantaspectoftheaccountingoftomorrow.

Forthosethathavealreadyembarkedonajourneytowardseffectivecarbondisclosure,reportinginaccordancewiththeCDP’srequirementsleadstoanumberofbenefits,notleastofwhichare:

• Increasedawarenessofgreenhousegasemissionshotspotssothattheycanbegintoreducethem;

• Gaininganunderstandingoftherisksfromclimatechangeandwaterscarcity;

• Creatingopportunitiestogeneraterevenuefromsustainableproductsandservices;

• Identifyingwaystofuture-proofbusinessfromclimatechangeandwaterscarcityimpacts;and,

• Identifyingwaystocutenergyconsumptioncoststhroughimprovedefficiencies.

The Investor’s Perspective: Risk and ReputationACarbonDisclosureProjectreport–Climate Resilient Stock Exchanges: Beyond the Disclosure Tipping Point–explainsthatafteradecadeofexperience,“the CDP and its partners offer to partner with exchanges to improve the transparency of systemic risk for investors, and to reduce exchanges’ vulnerability in a changing landscape of risk.“

ThisiswhereKingIIIbecomesrelevant,inthecontextofitscodeapplicationonan“applyorexplain”basis,requiringmanagementtoexplainhowitsprincipleswereapplied,orifnot,whynot.

The2011CDPReportwaspublishedonbehalfof551investorswithassetsofUS$71trillion.PaulSimpson,CEOoftheCDPexplainsthatcorporations,investorsandgovernmentsarefacedwitheitherhavingtoaggressivelycompeteforfiniteresources,ortoadvancetowardanenablingeconomywheresustainable,profitablegrowthcanbeachievedwhilstreducingrelianceon‘increasinglyscarcematerials’.Paulexplainsthat“Managing carbon emissions and protecting the business from climate change impacts is fundamental to achieving sustainable and strong shareholder returns.”

InvestmentconsultancyMercerforexample,reportedthatinorderforinstitutionalinvestorstomanageclimaterelatedportfoliorisk,ashiftof40%intheirportfoliosisrequiredintoclimate-sensitiveassets(withaddedemphasisplacedonthoseabletoadapttoalow-carbonenvironment).Meanwhile,theCDPhaslaunchedCarbonAction,drivenbyagroupofleadinginvestorsaimedatencouragingtheirportfoliocompaniestoinvestinemissionsreductionactivitieswithanagreeablepaybackperiod.

AccountancySApointsoutthat“Climate change issues appear to be increasingly integrated in companies’ governance activities.”Recently,manySouthAfricancompanieshavesetvoluntaryGHG-emissionsreductiontargets.In2011,31companiessetperformancetargetsrelatingtoGHG-emissionsreductionwhile22otherscommittedtodevelopingsuchtargets.There’salsoanotabletrendtowardsintegrationofclimatechangepracticesintogovernancestrategieswithaBoardCommitteeorexecutivebodyelectedtoberesponsible.Inaddition,twentypercentofcompaniesincentivisemanagementifclimatechangegoalsareachieved.

SA’s Supportive PoliciesIntermsoflegislation,SouthAfrica’sNationalClimateChangeResponsePolicyembodiesgovernment’scommitmenttoaddressingclimatechange,whileservingasaroadmapforeffectiveresponseandtransition.Governmenthasstatedthatitcannotwinthebattlewithoutthesupportofbusinessandasaresult,welcomesthecommitmentshownbySouthAfricancorporateparticipantswhounderstandtheneedtomanagereputationalrisk,especiallywithregardtoinvestorsandconsumers,aswellaswithregardtotheirgoodsandservices.

ItalsoreaffirmsthatSouthAfricaiscapableofplayingaleadingroleonthecontinentandamongemergingeconomiesincontributingtoandbenefittingfromopportunitiestomitigateandadapttoclimatechange.

MinisterEdnaMolewa,MPforWaterandEnvironmentalAffairscommentedonlastyear’sfifthCarbonDisclosureReport,sayingit“illuminatesbusiness’commitmenttoachievingdisclosureoftheircarbonfootprintandpro-activelyworkingtowardsitsreduction.”

Sheexplainedthatasthequalityandscopeofdataimproves,sodotheirrankingsofstrategicimportanceincontexttobeingabletoidentifyrisksandopportunities,allsignsoftheprogressivesignificancethatcompaniesareattachingtotheimpactsofclimatechange.

Thesettingoftargetsandimplementationofactionstoprogressagainstthesetargets,aswellasthefurtherpremiumthatneeds

Reporting st@rts here!

• Configure• Implement• Support• REPORT

Sustainability Data ToolkitReporting st@rts here!

Web: www.sdtoolkit.comEmail: info@sdtoolkit.comTel: 011 679 5597

SD Toolkit strives to make the sustainability reporting process practical, educational, as simple as possible and cost effective.

REasy and accurate information collation

RAutomatic BBBEE scorecard production

RFull CSI project management

RUnlimited users @ no extra cost

RFull audit trail and audit history

RReports at the touch of a button

63

EN20),witharemarkablyhighdegreeofuptakeamongthe129GRI-basedreporters.

Indicator Uptake Rate

GRI G3 Indicator GRI Non-GRI All

EN16:Totaldirectandindirectgreenhousegasemissionsbyweight. 61.7% 10.9% 28.8%

EN17:Otherrelevantindirectgreenhousegasemissionsbyweight. 34.8% 3.2% 14.3%

EN18:Initiativestoreducegreenhousegasemissionsandreductionsachieved. 41.4% 5.5% 18.2%

EN19:Emissionsofozone-depletingsubstancesbyweight. 21.9% 0.9% 8.3%

EN20:NOx,SOxandothersignificantairemissionsbytypeandweight. 27.0% 0.9% 10.1%

Ofthefive‘emissionsindicators’,EN16isthemostpertinent,duetoitsgeneralcoverageintermsofCDP.Thus,itshouldbeoflittlesurprisethat85ofthe128GRI-basedreportingentities(66.4%)offeredatleastaguessattheirtotalcarbonemissions,whileafurther29companiesreportedatotalCO2efigure,despitenotapplyingtheGRIGuidelines.The‘indicatoruptakerate’forEN16amongstallreportswasrelativelyhigh,at28.8%,the14thmostwidelyreported‘performanceindicator’,andthesecondonlytoEN28amongstthe30environmentalperformanceindicators.

tobeplacedonmeasurementandverification,areareasinwhichcompaniescanapplygreaterefforttoentrenchtheircapabilityinleadingthewaywhileatthesametimesustainingtheirbusinesses.

Basedontheevolutionoftheprocess,the2011CDPreporthighlightsthatthenextstepinthejourneyistoencouragecompaniestomovebeyondidentifyingriskstoriskmitigation.Thisincludesstrategicprioritiesandplansofimplementationtoincorporateidentifiedopportunities.

How Much Carbon are we Emitting?Althoughtheinformationisfarfromcomprehensive,duetothenumberofcompaniesyettodisclosetheircarbon,thisyear’sreviewofGRI-basedAnnual,IntegratedAnnualand/orSustainabilityreportsidentifiedasignificantshifttowardsmuchmoreeffectivedisclosure.Firstly,itshouldbenotedthatasaresultofactivitiesoftheGRI-basedreporterswereviewedintheMetals&Mining,Energy&NaturalResourcesandBanking&FinancialServicessectors,atotalof395154357tonnesofCO2ehadbeenpumpedintotheatmosphere(seethetableabove).However,Eskomisresponsibleforamind-numbing58.3%ofthiscarbon,whileSasolisresponsiblefor18.9%.

Sadly,theavailabledatadoesnotyetincludeSasol’skeycompetitors–BP,Engen,ShellandTotal(amongstothers)–anditishighlyprobablethatthevastmajorityofEskom’scarbonhasbeendoublecounted(inthatalloftheother28companieswouldreporttheircarbonemissionsresultingfromtheiruseofEskom’selectricity),butthedataoffersusanimportantbaselineforfuturecomparability,particularlyintermsofwhocares,orwho’sthinkingstrategicallyenoughtoprepareforamovetowardsautopianmodelofalowcarboneconomy.

Infairness,’29’isnotactuallythenumberofcompanieswhoreportedtheircarbon,notevenwithinthethreesectorswespecificallyfocusedon.Rather,thisisthenumberofcompanieswithinthosesectorsthatprovided‘comparabledata’.

Insomeinstances,likeinthecaseofSappi,meaningfulcarbonemissiondataisreported,butinaformatthatisonlyreallyrelevanttoaspecificindustry(i.e.,Pulp&Paper).Inothercases,companiesoptedtonormalisetheiremissionsbyofferinga‘tonnesperemployee’figure(or‘tonnesperemployeehourworked’),butthendidn’tprovidethenumberofemployees,thusmakingitimpossibletodeterminethetotalcarbonemitted.Nonethelesswewereabletocalculatesurprising‘uptakerates’forthesetofGRIindicatorspertainingtoemissions(EN16to

| The push Towards more effective carbon disclosure continued

EN28: Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

The only other performance indicators with higher uptake rates were EC1, EC3, EC8, LA8, LA11, EC6, LA1, LA13, EC7, LA7, LA4 and SO8. (Please refer to Appendix IV for an explanation of each indicator.)

NOTE

Acknowledging that communication has become critical to connecting people and doing business today, BusinessReport, with its daily readership of 935 000 readers, is the most appropriate business and financial title, reaching by far the widest audience of shareholders and stakeholders, for whom your statement will be most relevant.

BusinessReport circulates daily within 4 leading newspaper titles, The Star, Pretoria News, Cape Times and The Mercury, and makes business news and reviews more relevant to more people in the South African economy. It is the best read (and most read business and financial daily newspaper in South Africa).

By publishing your results in BusinessReport, you will reach more than 56% of the almost 1.65 million readers of daily financial publications. Can your company afford not to be seen in he biggest daily financial publication in South Africa?

For your one stop communication solution, please contact Rudolph le Roux:(011) 639-7100 or rudolph.leroux@inl.co.za

SOUTH AFRICA’S NATIONAL FINANCIAL DAILY

64

Attheriskofchoosingsides,itmaybeworthnotingthatafewcompanieshavesetthebarforotherstofollowintermsoftheircarbondisclosures.Foranyonestartingoutonthesamepath,orlookingtoimprovetheirmeasurementand/orreporting,itmightbeworthwhilelookingatthefollowingcompanies’reports:

Altron AlthougharelativelynewentrantintheCDPspace(1stfullsubmission),Altronhasimplementedacomprehensivecarbonmeasurementtoolkit,andhashadtheirsubmissionverifiedandassured.Theyhavenotyetsettargets,buthavestatedcommitmentstodoso.

Clicks TheyhavebeenreportingonCDPforfiveyearsandsomehowmanagetocontinuouslyimprovetheirdisclosurescores.Theyhaveimplementedconsiderablereductionactivitiesandarecommittedtotheirtargets.

MassmartReportingonCDPforfouryearsandverifyingtheirreports.Perhapsmoresothananyothercompany,Massmartisachievingrealreductions,especiallyinlogistics,andareveryhumble(i.e.,notridingthegreenwashbandwagon).

Oceana Theyhavebeenreportingvoluntarilyforthreeyears,Group andverifyingtheirreportsannually.Theyhaveset targetsandhavealignedtheirstrategiestomeet

theirtargets.

The Basics of Carbon DisclosureTodate,therehasbeennodocumentedcaseofacompanyattemptingtomeasureyetunabletoreportitscarbonemissions,andtheonlypossiblescenariounderwhichacompanymightfailtodosoisifthey’vegotonefootfirmlyentrenchedinaliquidationgrave.Evenintheabsenceofeffectiveenvironmentalmonitoringsystems,oradedicatedenvironmentaldepartment,theinformationneededtoproduceacarbonfootprintisalmostalwaysavailableviatheGL(theGeneralLedger…foundintheAccountant’soffice).Failingtoproduceacarbonfootprintwouldbetantamounttodetermininghowmuchmoneyiscurrentlyspentonenergy–electricity,fuels,etc.–andwouldsignalafargloomierforecastthanthecompany’sinabilitytoreduceitscarbonfootprint:itwouldsuggestthatthecompanyisonthebrinkofnothavingANYfootprint.

Forthosethathaveyettojointhethrongsofcompanies“doingtherightthing”,thefollowingisasetofbasicstepsrequiredtodiscloseone’scarbonfootprint,andthustoembarkoncreatingcarbonefficiencies.

• SignuptotheCDP,iffornootherreasonthantosetanannualmonitoringtargetforreportingagainstefficiencyimprovements.

• EstablishsystemsforcollectingScope1and2emissionsdata,particularlyfuels(e.g.,diesel,petrol,coal,LPG,etc.)andelectricityconsumptiondata,aswellasflightdataforScope3emissions.

• Establishasystemtoconvertenergyconsumptiondatatotonnesofcarbondioxideequivalents(CO2e),usingwidelyavailablecarbonconversionfactorsforeachtypeofenergyused(orflightrouteflown).

• Ensurethatdataisverified,eitherbyaninternalresource(e.g.,InternalAudit)orbyathirdparty.

• CompleteasubmissiontotheCDPforreviewandpublication,notingthatanerrantsubmissionisfarbetterthan‘nosubmission’,asanyidentifiederrorswouldmerelyallowforcontinuouslearningandprocessimprovement.

If all else fails… hire a consultant!

Aswithmostthingsintherealmofsustainabilityreporting,thetasks–inandofthemselves–arenotoverlycomplicatedand/orimpossibletolearn.Rather,thechallengewithincompaniestendstobe‘findingthetime’.Thus,thereisanarrayofhighlyefficientcarbonmanagementspecialistswhocanquickly,accuratelyandeffectivelycompleteacarbonfootprintforanycompany(althoughthescopeoftheexercisewouldobviouslydifferwiththesize,complexityand/ornatureofvariousbusinesses).ForalistofexperiencedCDPpractitionersinyourarea,refertotheIRAS’databaseof‘OtherReportingPractitioners’locatedatthebackofthisreport,orontheirwebsite:www.iras.co.za.

65

Our team offers leading companies the complete integrated annual report – from cover to cover, from analyst presentation to detailed website. Our clients are among the best and our track record is solid – this is what we do.

one report, one paletteThe way it used to be ...Annual reports have always been tough to produce on time. The company’s copy, investor relations input, agency management and design have to come together. But at least the formula used to be clear. The Company’s Act, JSE requirements and GAAP were established protocols offering a clear formula. Besides, financial issues, being the bread and butter of your business, are the bread and butter of your report.

... has changedWith King III, the annual reporting world just became a lot more complex. Now, non-financial issues need to be integrated into company strategy and reporting. Corporate risks, legal demands and international standards pile on pressure. More complex, yes. And readers of your report can take in only so much. They still want to read a clear message that shows confidence in your company’s long-term future.

Our business and sustainability expertise ...If you want an integrated annual report, you need an integrated annual reporting team – a palette of skills and experience found especially in Trialogue and GroundPepper. Our core expertise is sustainability reporting against King III and the GRI, and we do this with a strong background in business and management accounting. We talk the language of the CEO, not the activist.

... delivers cover to coverIngredients: ops reviews, accounts, stakeholder concerns, legal and regulatory risksBasic mix: material issues, folding in management, performance and commentaryUnderlined by: GRI tables, application of King III, preparation for assuranceDelivered: print and web reports, results and analyst presentationsFramed: winner of the 2011 Ernst & Young Excellence in Sustainability Reporting Awards*

CAPE TOWN OFFICEBlock M, Greenford Office Park Punters Way Kenilworth, 7708 Tel: 021 671 1640

JOHANNESBURG OFFICE26 Baker Street Rosebank, 2196Tel: 011 026 1308

info@trialogue.co.za www.trialogue.co.za

Pulling it

together

Translation

Project

managem

ent

Traffic

managem

ent

Proofreading

Financial

typesetting

Results

announcements

Annual financial

statements

Analyst

presentations

DTP

Creativity anddesign

Photographic direction

Conceptual design

Styling

Styling

Integrated reporting

Commentary on performance

Performance on indicators

Governance aspects

assurance prep

Sustainability

consulting

Response

strategy

Material

issues

Performance

indicators

Management

approach

* Reporting for Bidvest

| Appendices

Our team offers leading companies the complete integrated annual report – from cover to cover, from analyst presentation to detailed website. Our clients are among the best and our track record is solid – this is what we do.

one report, one paletteThe way it used to be ...Annual reports have always been tough to produce on time. The company’s copy, investor relations input, agency management and design have to come together. But at least the formula used to be clear. The Company’s Act, JSE requirements and GAAP were established protocols offering a clear formula. Besides, financial issues, being the bread and butter of your business, are the bread and butter of your report.

... has changedWith King III, the annual reporting world just became a lot more complex. Now, non-financial issues need to be integrated into company strategy and reporting. Corporate risks, legal demands and international standards pile on pressure. More complex, yes. And readers of your report can take in only so much. They still want to read a clear message that shows confidence in your company’s long-term future.

Our business and sustainability expertise ...If you want an integrated annual report, you need an integrated annual reporting team – a palette of skills and experience found especially in Trialogue and GroundPepper. Our core expertise is sustainability reporting against King III and the GRI, and we do this with a strong background in business and management accounting. We talk the language of the CEO, not the activist.

... delivers cover to coverIngredients: ops reviews, accounts, stakeholder concerns, legal and regulatory risksBasic mix: material issues, folding in management, performance and commentaryUnderlined by: GRI tables, application of King III, preparation for assuranceDelivered: print and web reports, results and analyst presentationsFramed: winner of the 2011 Ernst & Young Excellence in Sustainability Reporting Awards*

CAPE TOWN OFFICEBlock M, Greenford Office Park Punters Way Kenilworth, 7708 Tel: 021 671 1640

JOHANNESBURG OFFICE26 Baker Street Rosebank, 2196Tel: 011 026 1308

info@trialogue.co.za www.trialogue.co.za

Pulling it

together

Translation

Project

managem

ent

Traffic

managem

ent

Proofreading

Financial

typesetting

Results

announcements

Annual financial

statements

Analyst

presentations

DTP

Creativity anddesign

Photographic direction

Conceptual design

Styling

Styling

Integrated reporting

Commentary on performance

Performance on indicators

Governance aspects

assurance prep

Sustainability

consulting

Response

strategy

Material

issues

Performance

indicators

Management

approach

* Reporting for Bidvest

Appendix I: Inventory of South African GRI Reports

Company Assured by Type of assurance Year IAR

– In

teg

rate

d A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

AR

– A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

SR

– S

ust

ain

abili

ty R

epo

rt

SD

R –

Su

stai

nab

le D

evel

op

men

t R

epo

rt

CFS

– C

on

solid

ated

Fin

anci

al S

tate

men

ts

CG

R –

Co

rpo

rate

Go

vern

ance

Rep

ort

Oth

er

Web

su

pp

ort

ed

(+13

) 20

12 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+12

) 20

11 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+11

) 20

10 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

AbsaGroup PwC/EY ISAE3000+AA1000 2011 X X B+ ND ND 72.3 60.2 59.4 33 40 33

AdcockIngram 2011 X NC(B) 43.5 31.1 37.8 99 116 96

Adcorp Deloitte ISAE3000 2012 X ND 44.7 24.4 31.1 94 148 136

AECI KPMG ISAE3000 2011 X ND NC 47.0 43.3 44.9 86 81 71

Afgri 2011 X C ND 69.2 50.0 39.0 40 67 90

AfricanBank SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeI 2011 X X B+ ND ND 84.6 61.8 47.2 13 32 65

AfricanOxygen 2011 X ND ND ND 37.5 61.4 73.2 126 33 19

AfricanRainbowMinerals SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeII 2011 X X A+ B+ ND 90.9 82.3 65.0 7 13 27

Altech–AlliedTechnologies PKF ISAE3000 2012 X X B+ B ND 75.9 68.1 43.3 27 26 76

Altron–AlliedElectronics SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeII 2012 X X X B+ B+ C 81.8 68.9 54.3 16 24 44

AngloAmericanplc PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X X A+ A+ A+ 88.5 86.6 83.1 11 7 10

AngloGoldAshanti EY ISAE3000 2011 X X X X A+ A+ A+ 77.5 85.0 85.8 24 8 5

AngloAmericanPlatinum PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X X A+ A+ A+ 88.5 83.5 89.4 10 9 3

AquariusPlatinum 2011 X NC(C) C ND 58.5 56.3 48.8 57 50 62

ArcelorMittal 2011 X X X ND NC(B) ND 64.4 54.3 44.9 49 57 72

AspenPharmacare 2011 X NC(B) C 62.5 64.2 53.5 50 30 50

Assore 2011 X C ND 46.6 42.9 36.6 87 83 102

AstralFoods 2011 X ND NC ND 54.2 37.4 39.4 66 99 87

AustroGroup PKF ISAE3000 2011 X X C+ 38.3 15.7 24.8 121 282 208

AVI 2011 X X ND 36.4 18.9 35.4 135 224 105

Avusa 2011 X NC(C) 66.4 30.3 31.1 46 118 137

Barloworld Deloitte ISAE3000 2011 X X A+ B+ ND 94.1 61.0 82.7 4 36 11

BasilRead 2011 X NC(C) NC ND 49.0 41.3 32.7 81 88 121

Bidvest Deloitte ISAE3000 2011 X X ND B+ B+ 65.6 61.0 59.8 48 37 32

BlueLabelTelecoms PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X C+ C+ C+ 43.9 54.3 48.0 98 58 64

Brimstone 2011 X ND NC 66.4 58.7 24.8 47 42 205

Buildmax 2011 X C 39.5 18.5 27.2 113 229 180

BusinessConnexion 2011 X NC(C) 34.4 33.5 38.6 141 110 92

CargoCarriers 2012 X C 42.3 15.4 22.4 101 286 255

ClicksGroup 2011 X X ND ND ND 39.5 36.2 48.4 114 103 63

68

Company Assured by Type of assurance Year IAR

– In

teg

rate

d A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

AR

– A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

SR

– S

ust

ain

abili

ty R

epo

rt

SD

R –

Su

stai

nab

le D

evel

op

men

t R

epo

rt

CFS

– C

on

solid

ated

Fin

anci

al S

tate

men

ts

CG

R –

Co

rpo

rate

Go

vern

ance

Rep

ort

Oth

er

Web

su

pp

ort

ed

(+13

) 20

12 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+12

) 20

11 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+11

) 20

10 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

Comair PKF ISAE3000 2011 X C+ 56.9 29.5 32.3 61 121 128

ConsolidatedInfrastructureGroup PKF ISAE3000 2011 X NC(C+) 33.2 17.3 144 254

Cotlands KPMG ISAE3000 2011 X X ND B+ B+ 52.2 55.5 54.3 72 53 45

CountryBird 2011 X ND 31.6 18.1 24.4 153 239 216

DeltaEMD 2011 X ND 39.1 19.3 16.9 118 220 343

Denel 2011 X ND C 49.8 57.9 77 44

Digicore PKF ISAE3000 2011 X X X C+ 44.7 22.0 32.7 95 179 123

DiscoveryHealth 2011 X X X B B C 52.6 56.3 55.9 70 51 41

Distell 2011 X X X NC(C) 53.8 33.9 37.4 67 109 98

Distribution&WarehousingNetwork 2011 X A 81.8 37.8 52.8 17 98 51

DRDGold 2011 X X NC(C) C C 60.5 65.0 59.1 54 29 37

EasternPlatinum 2010 X NC(B) C 45.5 33.1 92 111

EfficientGroup PKF ISAE3000 2011 X C+ 39.5 17.7 20.5 115 247 280

Eqstra 2011 X ND NC ND 48.2 48.0 49.6 84 72 61

Eskom KPMG ISAE3000+AA1000 2012 X B+ B+ B+ 66.8 63.0 60.2 45 31 31

Esorfranki 2012 X C 50.6 24.4 28.7 74 149 164

EvrazHighveldSteel&Vanadium 2011 X NC(C) C 69.6 74.4 74.8 39 19 17

Exxarro PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X B+ B+ B+ 72.7 70.1 72.0 32 22 20

Finbond 2012 X C 39.5 16.9 19.7 116 266 293

FirstRandGroup 2011 X X X ND ND ND 41.1 40.6 46.9 106 90 67

Foschini 2011 X X X ND ND ND 70.4 83.5 40.9 37 10 83

Gijima 2011 X NC(B) C 37.9 50.4 26.0 124 65 194

GoldFields Maplecroft/KPMG ISAE3000+AA1000 2011 X X X A+ A+ B+ 96.0 94.9 64.6 2 2 28

Grindrod Deloitte ISAE3000 2011 X X B+ ND ND 73.9 68.9 68.9 30 25 24

GroupFive PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X ND ND ND 69.2 61.0 60.2 41 38 30

HarmonyGold PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X X X B+ B+ B+ 75.1 81.9 83.5 28 14 9

Holdsport 2012 X ND 36.8 133

HowdenAfrica 2011 X C NC 40.3 42.1 22.0 111 86 260

HudacoIndustries 2011 X NC(C) NC 30.0 27.2 33.9 159 129 111

HypropInvestments 2011 X ND 40.3 21.7 28.0 112 187 173

IliadAfrica 2011 X NC(C) NC 33.6 43.7 33.1 143 79 118

IllovoSugar SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeI 2012 X B+ 73.5 53.5 32.3 31 59 126

ImpahlaClothing 2012 X ND A+ B+ 89.3 90.6 67.7 8 5 25

ImpalaPlatinum KPMG ISAE3000 2011 X X X B+ B+ B+ 70.8 61.4 76.4 36 34 15

69

Company Assured by Type of assurance Year IAR

– In

teg

rate

d A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

AR

– A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

SR

– S

ust

ain

abili

ty R

epo

rt

SD

R –

Su

stai

nab

le D

evel

op

men

t R

epo

rt

CFS

– C

on

solid

ated

Fin

anci

al S

tate

men

ts

CG

R –

Co

rpo

rate

Go

vern

ance

Rep

ort

Oth

er

Web

su

pp

ort

ed

(+13

) 20

12 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+12

) 20

11 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+11

) 20

10 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

Imperial 2011 X X C NC C 56.5 59.1 55.9 62 41 42

Investec 2011 X X X NC(B) B B 42.7 55.5 59.1 100 54 34

JDGroup 2011 X ND C 70.4 70.9 37.8 38 20 97

KayDav PKF ISAE3000 2011 X C+ 29.6 11.0 16.1 163 375 352

KeatonEnergy 2011 X NC(C) C ND 39.1 39.8 29.9 119 93 152

KumbaIronOre PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X X NC(A+) C+ 87.7 57.5 12 45

LibertyGroup* PwC ISAE3000+AA1000 2011 X X X B+ B+ B+ 71.9 76.8 70.5 35 17 21

LifeHealthcare 2011 X ND 37.2 37.0 128 102

LittleEden SustainabilityServices.co.za Non-aligned 2012 X B+ 79.1 20

Lonmin KPMG ISAE3000 2011 X X X NC(A+) A+ B+ 94.1 93.3 85.4 5 3 6

Massmart 2011 X X ND ND ND 79.1 82.7 73.6 21 11 18

Medi-Clinic 2011 X NC(C) ND ND 62.1 52.8 52.4 51 60 53

Media24 2011 X NC(C) ND C 54.9 27.2 38.2 64 130 93

MerafeResources SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeII 2011 X B+ B+ B+ 74.7 61.4 84.6 29 35 8

MetairInvestments SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeI 2011 X C+ 45.5 20.1 21.3 93 211 270

MMIHoldings 2011 X X X C 49.4 15.0 79 300

Mondi ERM ISAE3000 2011 X X X B+ 81.0 18

Morvest PKF ISAE3000 2011 X C+ 46.2 89

Mpact 2011 X C 48.6 83

MTN 2011 X X NC(B) ND 67.6 81.9 31.9 44 15 131

MultiChoice 2011 X X NC(C) NC C 49.4 39.4 29.9 80 94 151

Murray&Roberts Deloitte ISAE3000 2011 X B+ ND ND 52.6 55.9 58.3 71 52 38

Nampak 2011 X C C C 58.5 57.5 59.1 58 46 36

Naspers 2011 X NC(C) NC C 50.6 37.0 37.0 75 100 100

Nedbank KPMG/Deloitte ISAE3000+AA1000 2011 X X A+ A+ A+ 78.7 67.3 69.3 23 28 23

Netcare 2011 X X B 76.7 41.7 50.4 25 87 58

NorthamPlatinum ERM AA1000TypeII 2011 X X B+ B+ C+ 79.8 81.9 64.2 19 16 29

Omnia 2011 X NC(C) NC ND 44.7 49.2 44.5 96 69 73

Onelogix 2011 X C ND 41.5 38.6 23.6 105 95 231

PhumelelaGaming&Leisure 2011 X C NC 84.6 52.0 23.6 14 63 233

PretoriaPortlandCement Deloitte ISAE3000 2011 X X C+ C+ C 54.9 57.1 65.7 65 48 26

Primeserv 2011 X ND 46.2 22.4 33.1 90 173 119

PSV SustainabilityServices.co.za Non-aligned 2011 X C+ 59.7 18.5 21.7 55 233 263

RainbowChicken 2011 X X X ND NC ND 51.8 55.5 50.8 73 55 55

RedefineProperties 2011 X ND 42.3 22.4 102 175

| appendix I: Inventory of South african GrI reports continued

70

Company Assured by Type of assurance Year IAR

– In

teg

rate

d A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

AR

– A

nn

ual

Rep

ort

SR

– S

ust

ain

abili

ty R

epo

rt

SD

R –

Su

stai

nab

le D

evel

op

men

t R

epo

rt

CFS

– C

on

solid

ated

Fin

anci

al S

tate

men

ts

CG

R –

Co

rpo

rate

Go

vern

ance

Rep

ort

Oth

er

Web

su

pp

ort

ed

(+13

) 20

12 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+12

) 20

11 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+11

) 20

10 A

pp

licat

ion

Lev

el

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Sco

re (

%)

(+13

) 20

12 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+12

) 20

11 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

(+11

) 20

10 G

RI C

om

plia

nce

Ran

k

Reunert 2011 X X ND ND 48.2 45.3 33.5 85 77 115

RichardsBayMinerals 2011 X NC(C) 36.8 134

RoyalBafokengPlatinum PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X B+ B+ 68.0 57.1 43 49

Sanlam EY ISAE3000 2011 X X X B+ B+ B 82.6 60.6 57.9 15 39 39

Santam 2011 X X B B ND 62.1 52.8 39.4 52 61 86

Sappi 2011 X X X A A A 93.3 87.4 79.5 6 6 13

Sasfin 2011 X C 41.9 21.7 25.2 103 190 201

Sasol PwC ISAE3000 2011 X X X A+ A+ A+ 99.6 99.6 94.9 1 1 1

Silverbridge 2011 X NC(C) 22.9 18.9 21.3 210 228 276

SowetoMarimbaYouthLeague 2011 X C 55.7 63

StandardBank KPMG AA1000TypeII 2011 X X X B+ B+ B+ 79.1 76.4 79.1 22 18 14

StefanuttiStocks 2011 X C 37.9 29.1 31.1 125 124 135

SunInternational SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeII 2011 X X B+ C+ 76.3 43.7 42.9 26 80 77

Telkom Nkonki ISAE3000 2011 X X X C+ ND ND 53.4 35.4 42.9 68 107 78

TongaatHulett SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeI 2012 X B+ C+ 68.8 57.5 43.7 42 47 74

TopFixHoldings 2011 X NC(C) 29.6 14.6 23.6 164 307 229

Transnet 2011 X X X C ND ND 58.1 37.0 54.3 60 101 47

Truworths 2011 X X X ND ND ND 37.2 42.5 46.1 129 84 69

UmgeniWater 2011 X NC(B) NC C 62.1 52.0 50.4 53 64 57

ValueGroup 2011 X C 46.6 26.4 88 190

Verimark 2011 X ND 39.1 12.2 18.5 120 352 325

Vodacom 2011 X X X NC(B) C C 58.5 49.2 43.7 59 70 75

WesizwePlatinum 2011 X NC(C) 49.0 28.3 33.9 82 125 112

Wilderness SustainabilityServices.co.za Non-aligned 2011 X B+ 94.9 24.0 3 159

WilsonBaylyHomes-Ovcon 2011 X X C 46.2 31.5 37.8 91 115 95

WitwatersrandConsolidatedGold 2011 X C 53.0 22.0 22.4 69 184 250

Woolworths EY ISAE3000 2011 X X NC(B+) ND A 72.3 58.7 54.3 34 43 46

Workforce 2011 X NC(C) 37.2 19.3 24.8 130 222 206

XstrataSouthAfrica SustainabilityServices.co.za AA1000TypeII 2010 X B+ B+ 88.9 68.1 9 27

71

Company Rank

GoliathGoldMiningLtd 297

GoodersonLeisureCorporation 309

GrandParadeInvestmentsLtd 212

GrowthpointPropertiesLtd 139

HardwareWarehouseLtd 318

HoskenConsolidatedInvestmentsLtd 157

HospitalityPropertyFund 123

HugeGroupLtd 280

HulaminLtd 110

HwangeCollieryLtd 254

IdecoGroupLtd 361

IFAHotelsandResorts 223

Imuniti 311

IndependentPowerSouthernAfrica(IPSAGroup) 319

IndequityGroupLtd 320

IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(IDC) 201

InfrasorsHoldingsLtd 275

IngenuityPropertyInvestmentsLtd 335

InsimbiRefractoryandAlloysSuppliesLtd 187

IntertradingLtd 344

InterwasteHoldingsLtd 282

InvictaHoldingsLtd 224

IquadGroupLtd 302

ISAHoldingsLtd 310

ItaltileLtd 207

JascoElectronicsHoldings 202

JohnDanielHoldingsLtd 329

JSELtd 170

JubileePlatinum 259

KagisoMediaLtd 184

KellyGroupLtd 174

KiboMining 350

KWVHoldingsLtd 265

LabatAfricaLtd 321

LewisGroupLtd 127

LithaHealthcareGroupLtd 176

LondonFinance&InvestmentGroup 347

MasoniteAfricaLtd 152

MazorGroupLtd 185

MercantileBankHoldingsLtd 198

MetmarLtd 246

MetrofileHoldingsLtd 283

Company Rank

CapitecBankHoldingsLtd 122

CashbuildLtd 306

CaxtonCTPLtd 211

CentralRandGoldLtd 217

CeramicIndustriesLtd 137

ChamberofMines 355

ChemicalSpecialitiesLtd 145

ChrometcoLtd 334

CityLodgeHotelsLtd 167

ClienteleLtd 237

CloverIndustriesLtd 146

CoalofAfricaLtd 222

CombinedMotorHoldingsLtd 249

CompuClearingOutsourcingLtd 269

ConduitCapitalLtd 263

ControlInstrumentsGroup 147

ConvergeNetHoldingsLtd 301

CoronationFundManagersLtd 234

CrookesBrothersLtd 264

CullinanHoldings 218

CurroHoldingsLtd 178

DatacentrixHoldingsLtd 240

DatatecLtd 182

Diamondcorp 296

DipulaIncomeFundLtd 279

DonGroupLtd 343

DorbylLtd 307

ELBGroupLtd 292

ElliesHoldingsLtd 308

EmiraPropertyFund 235

EOHHoldingsLtd 173

ErbaconInvestmentHoldingsLtd 219

ExcellerateHoldingsLtd 325

FairvestPropertyHoldings 293

FamousBrandsLtd 250

FirestoneEnergyLtd 360

FirstUraniumCorporation 241

FoneworxHoldingsLtd 220

FoordCompassLtd 362

FortressIncomeFundLtd 328

FountainheadPropertyTrust 200

GoldOneInternationalLtd 274

Company Rank

1TimeHoldingsLtd 333

AccentuateLtd 233

AcucapPropertiesLtd 261

AdaptITHoldingsLtd 107

AdrennaPropertyGroupLimited 245

ADvTECH 205

AfricaCellularTowers 251

AfricanandOverseasEnterprises 239

AfricanBrickCentreLtd 323

AfricanDawnCapitalLtd 288

AfricanMediaEntertainment 324

AfrimatLtd 151

Afrocentric 199

AH-VestLtd 257

AlertSteelHoldingsLtd 273

AlexanderForbes 165

AmalgamatedApplianceHoldingsLtd 169

AmalgamatedElectronicCorporationLtd 227

AndulelaInvestmentHoldingsLtd 252

AnsysLtd 228

ARBHoldingsLtd 166

ArgentIndustrialLtd 258

AstrapakLtd 154

AvengLtd 108

AwethuBreweriesLtd 359

B&WInstrumentation&ElectricalLtd 131

BaubaPlatinumLtd 206

BeigeHoldingsLtd 160

BellEquipmentLtd 186

BioscienceBrandsLtd 229

BKone 262

BlueFinancialServices 253

BowlerMetcalfLtd 215

BraitS.A. 181

BrikorLtd 230

BSISteelLtd 195

CadizHoldingsLtd 231

CafcaLtd 278

CalgroM3HoldingsLtd 172

CapevinInvestmentsLtd 342

Capital&CountiesProperties 216

CapitalPropertyFund 291

Appendix II: Index of Non-GRI-Based Reporting Companies

72

Company Rank

SycomPropertyFund 314

TasteHoldingsLtd 193

TelemastersHoldingsLtd 322

ThabexLtd 316

TigerBrandsLtd 117

TotalClientServicesLtd 287

TradeholdLtd 327

TransHexGroupLtd 150

TranspacoLtd 149

TrematonCapitalInvestmentsLtd 354

TrencorLtd 248

TrustcoGroupHoldingsLtd 298

UbubeleHoldingsLtd 299

VillageMainReefGoldMiningCompany 197

VividendIncomeFundLtd 226

VukilePropertyFundLtd 209

VunaniPropertyInvestmentFundLtd 317

WGWearneLtd 290

WescoalHoldingsLtd 272

WilliamTellHoldingsLtd 300

WinholdLtd 171

YorkTimberHoldingsLtd 194

ZCILtd 236

ZederInvestmentsLtd 277

ZurichInsuranceCompanySA 244

Company Rank

RaubexGroupLtd 189

RBAHoldingsLtd 225

RealAfricaHoldingsLtd 339

RebosisPropertyFundLtd 255

RECM&CalibreLtd 352

ReinetInvestments 313

RemgroLtd 76

ResilientPropertyIncomeFundLtd 284

ResourceGenerationLtd 331

RexTrueformClothingCompanyLtd 247

RGTSMARTMarketIntelligenceLtd 267

RichardsBayCoalTerminals 148

RMBHoldingsLtd 180

RockwellDiamondsIncorporated 353

RolfesTechnologyHoldingsLtd 142

SACorporateRealEstateFund 168

SAFrenchLtd 340

SableHoldingsLtd 351

SabvestLtd 285

SacoilHoldingsLtd 341

SantovaLogisticsLtd 256

SanyatiHoldingsLtd 243

SeaKayHoldingsLtd 356

SeardelInvestmentCorporationLtd 332

SecuredataHoldingsLtd 346

SekunjaloInvestmentsLtd 190

SentulaMiningLtd 104

Senwes 177

SephakuHoldingsLtd 196

ShopriteHoldingsLtd 294

Simmer&JackMinesLtd 286

SkinwellHoldingsLtd 295

SouthOceanHoldingsLtd 161

SouthernElectricityCompany(SELCo) 268

SovereignFoodInvestmentsLtd 175

SpanjaardLtd 260

SparGroupLtd 162

SpurCorporationLtd 232

SteinhoffInternationalHoldings 78

StellaVistaTechnologiesLtd 358

StratcorpLtd 204

SuperGroupLtd 156

Company Rank

MicromegaHoldingsLtd 158

MineWasteSolutionsLtd 363

MirandaMineralHoldings 330

MixTelematicsLtd 213

MoneyWebHoldingsLtd 348

MrPriceGroupLtd 140

MustekLtd 214

MvelaphandaGroupLtd 303

MvelaserveLtd 191

Net1UEPSTechnologiesInc 326

NewAfricaInvestmentsLtd 336

NewCorpcapitalLtd 357

NictusBeperk 345

NutritionalHoldings 203

Nu-WorldHoldingsLtd 208

OasisCrescentPropertyFund 349

OceanaGroupLtd 97

OctodecInvestmentsLtd 192

O-LineHoldingsLtd 136

OptimumCoalHoldingsLtd 56

OrionRealEstateLtd 337

PalaboraMiningCompany 109

PallinghurstResourcesLtd 312

PanAfricanResource 155

PBTGroupLtd 315

PeregrineHoldingsLtd 138

PetminLtd 221

PicknPay 132

PinnacleTechnologyHoldingsLtd 242

PioneerFoodsGroupLtd 179

PlatfieldsLtd 238

PoyntingHoldingsLtd 289

PremiumPropertiesLtd 338

ProtechKhutheleHoldingsLtd 183

PSGGroupLimited 281

PurpleCapitalLtd 276

PutpropLtd 266

QuantumPropertyGroupLtd 304

RacecGroupLtd 270

RandMerchantInsuranceHoldingsLimited 188

Randgold&ExplorationCompanyLtd 271

RareHoldingsLtd 305

73

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

1 Sasol A+ 99.6 99.6 94.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

2 GoldFields A+ 96.0 94.9 64.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

3 Wilderness B+ 94.9 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

4 Barloworld* A+ 94.1 61.0 82.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

5 Lonmin NC(A+) 94.1 93.3 85.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

6 Sappi A 93.3 87.4 79.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

7 AfricanRainbowMinerals A+ 90.9 82.3 65.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

8 ImpahlaClothing ND 89.3 90.6 67.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

9 XstrataSouthAfrica B+ 88.9 68.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

10 AngloAmericanPlatinum A+ 88.5 83.5 89.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

11 AngloAmericanplc A+ 88.5 86.6 83.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

12 KumbaIronOre NC(A+) 87.7 57.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

13 AfricanBank B+ 84.6 61.8 47.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

14 PhumelelaGaming&Leisure C 84.6 52.0 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

15 Sanlam B+ 82.6 60.6 57.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

16 Altron B+ 81.8 68.9 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

17 Distribution&WarehousingNetwork A 81.8 37.8 52.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

18 Mondi B+ 81.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

19 NorthamPlatinum B+ 79.8 81.9 64.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

20 LittleEden B+ 79.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

21 Massmart ND 79.1 82.7 73.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

22 StandardBank B+ 79.1 76.4 79.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

23 Nedbank A+ 78.7 67.3 69.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

24 AngloGoldAshanti A+ 77.5 85.0 85.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

25 Netcare B 76.7 41.7 50.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

26 SunInternational B+ 76.3 43.7 42.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

27 Altech B+ 75.9 68.1 43.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

28 HarmonyGold B+ 75.1 81.9 83.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

29 MerafeResources B+ 74.7 61.4 84.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

30 Grindrod B+ 73.9 68.9 68.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Appendix III: Our Ranking of GRI Compliance

* With apologies, our assessment of Barloworld’s report in 2011 did not include web-based information.

74

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

31 IllovoSugar B+ 73.5 53.5 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

32 Exxarro B+ 72.7 70.1 72.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

33 AbsaGroup B+ 72.3 60.2 59.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

34 Woolworths NC(B+) 72.3 58.7 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

35 Liberty B+ 71.9 76.8 70.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

36 ImpalaPlatinum B+ 70.8 61.4 76.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

37 Foschini ND 70.4 83.5 40.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

38 JDGroup ND 70.4 70.9 37.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

39 EvrazHighveldSteel&Vanadium NC(C) 69.6 74.4 74.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

40 Afgri C 69.2 50.0 39.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

41 GroupFive ND 69.2 61.0 60.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

42 TongaatHulett B+ 68.8 57.5 43.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

43 RoyalBafokengPlatinum B+ 68.0 57.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

44 MTN NC(B) 67.6 81.9 31.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

45 Eskom B+ 66.8 63.0 60.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

46 Avusa NC(C) 66.4 30.3 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

47 Brimstone ND 66.4 58.7 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

48 Bidvest ND 65.6 61.0 59.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

49 ArcelorMittal ND 64.4 54.3 44.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

50 AspenPharmacare NC(B) 62.5 64.2 53.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

51 Mediclinic NC(C) 62.1 52.8 52.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

52 Santam B 62.1 52.8 39.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

53 UmgeniWater NC(B) 62.1 52.0 50.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

54 DRDGold NC(C) 60.5 65.0 59.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

55 PSVHoldings C+ 59.7 18.5 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

56 OptimumCoal 59.3 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

57 AquariusPlatinum NC(C) 58.5 56.3 48.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

58 Nampak C 58.5 57.5 59.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

59 Vodacom NC(B) 58.5 49.2 43.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

60 Transnet C 58.1 37.0 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

75

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

61 Comair C+ 56.9 29.5 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

62 Imperial C 56.5 59.1 55.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

63 SowetoMarimbaYouthLeague C 55.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

64 Media24 NC(C) 54.9 27.2 38.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

65 PretoriaPortlandCement C+ 54.9 57.1 65.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

66 AstralFoods ND 54.2 37.4 39.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

67 Distell NC(C) 53.8 33.9 37.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

68 Telkom C+ 53.4 35.4 42.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

69 WitwatersrandConsolidatedGold C 53.0 22.0 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

70 Discovery B 52.6 56.3 55.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

71 Murray&Roberts B+ 52.6 55.9 58.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

72 Cotlands ND 52.2 55.5 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

73 RainbowChicken ND 51.8 55.5 50.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

74 Esorfranki C 50.6 24.4 28.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

75 Naspers NC(C) 50.6 37.0 37.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

76 Remgro 50.2 22.0 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

77 Denel ND 49.8 57.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

78 SteinhoffInternational 49.8 38.6 47.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

79 MMI C 49.4 15.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

80 MultiChoice NC(C) 49.4 39.4 29.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

81 BasilRead NC(C) 49.0 41.3 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

82 WesizwePlatinum NC(C) 49.0 28.3 33.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

83 Mpact C 48.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

84 Eqstra ND 48.2 48.0 49.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

85 Reunert ND 48.2 45.3 33.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

86 AECI ND 47.0 43.3 44.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

87 Assore C 46.6 42.9 36.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

88 ValueGroup C 46.6 26.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

89 Morvest C+ 46.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

90 Primeserv ND 46.2 22.4 33.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

| appendix III: Our ranking of GrI compliance continued

76

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

91 WilsonBaylyHomes-Ovcon C 46.2 31.5 37.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

92 EasternPlatinum NC(B) 45.5 33.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

93 MetairInvestments C+ 45.5 20.1 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

94 Adcorp ND 44.7 24.4 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

95 Digicore C+ 44.7 22.0 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

96 Omnia NC(C) 44.7 49.2 44.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

97 OceanaGroup 44.3 52.4 54.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

98 BlueLabelTelecoms C+ 43.9 54.3 48.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

99 AdcockIngram NC(B) 43.5 31.1 37.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

100 Investec NC(B) 42.7 55.5 59.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

101 CargoCarriers C 42.3 15.4 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

102 RedefineProperties ND 42.3 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

103 Sasfin C 41.9 21.7 25.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

104 SentulaMining 41.9 40.6 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

105 OneLogix C 41.5 38.6 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

106 FirstRandGroup ND 41.1 40.6 46.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

107 AdaptIT 41.1 26.0 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

108 Aveng 41.1 40.9 42.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

109 PalaboraMiningCompany 41.1 35.8 42.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

110 Hulamin 40.7 46.5 39.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

111 HowdenAfrica C 40.3 42.1 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

112 HypropInvestments ND 40.3 21.7 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

113 Buildmax C 39.5 18.5 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

114 ClicksGroup ND 39.5 36.2 48.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

115 EfficientGroup C+ 39.5 17.7 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

116 Finbond C 39.5 16.9 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

117 TigerBrands 39.5 21.7 31.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

118 DeltaEMD ND 39.1 19.3 16.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

119 KeatonEnergy NC(C) 39.1 39.8 29.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

120 Verimark ND 39.1 12.2 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

77

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

121 AustroGroup C+ 38.3 15.7 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

122 CapitecBank 38.3 35.4 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

123 HospitalityPropertyFund 38.3 24.4 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

124 Gijima NC(B) 37.9 50.4 26.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

125 StefanuttiStocks C 37.9 29.1 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

126 AfricanOxygen ND 37.5 61.4 73.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

127 LewisGroup 37.5 26.8 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

128 LifeHealthcare ND 37.2 37.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

129 Truworths ND 37.2 42.5 46.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

130 Workforce NC(C) 37.2 19.3 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

131 B&WInstrumentation&Electrical 37.2 25.2 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

132 PicknPay 37.2 30.3 40.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

133 Holdsport ND 36.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

134 RichardsBayMinerals NC(C) 36.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

135 AVI ND 36.4 18.9 35.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

136 O-Line 36.4 27.2 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

137 CeramicIndustries 36.0 26.0 33.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

138 Peregrine 35.6 12.2 26.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

139 GrowthpointProperties 35.2 38.2 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

140 MrPriceGroup 34.8 26.8 33.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

141 BusinessConnexion NC(C) 34.4 33.5 38.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

142 RolfesTechnology 34.4 24.0 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

143 IliadAfrica NC(C) 33.6 43.7 33.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

144 ConsolidatedInfrastructureGroup NC(C+) 33.2 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

145 ChemicalSpecialities 33.2 21.3 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

146 CloverIndustries 33.2 29.1 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

147 ControlInstrumentsGroup 33.2 20.1 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

148 RichardsBayCoalTerminals 32.8 44.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

149 Transpaco 32.8 17.3 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

150 TransHexGroup 32.4 29.9 25.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

| appendix III: Our ranking of GrI compliance continued

78

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

151 Afrimat 32.0 28.0 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

152 MasoniteAfrica 32.0 16.1 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

153 CountryBird ND 31.6 18.1 24.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

154 Astrapak 31.6 31.9 28.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

155 PanAfricanResource 30.8 23.2 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

156 SuperGroup 30.8 17.3 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

157 HoskenConsolidatedInvestments 30.4 18.9 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

158 Micromega 30.4 17.3 26.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

159 HudacoIndustries NC(C) 30.0 27.2 33.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

160 Beige 30.0 17.7 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

161 SouthOcean 30.0 24.8 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

162 SparGroup 30.0 31.5 36.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

163 KayDav C+ 29.6 11.0 16.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

164 TopFixHoldings NC(C) 29.6 14.6 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

165 AlexanderForbes 29.6 26.0 33.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

166 ARB 29.6 28.0 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

167 CityLodgeHotels 29.6 22.0 33.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

168 SACorporateRealEstateFund 29.6 22.4 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

169 AmalgamatedApplianceHoldings 29.2 20.9 27.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

170 JSE 29.2 24.4 37.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

171 Winhold 28.5 19.7 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

172 CalgroM3 28.1 17.3 20.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

173 EOH 28.1 18.5 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

174 KellyGroup 28.1 29.1 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

175 SovereignFoodInvestments 28.1 24.0 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

176 LithaHealthcareGroup 27.7 13.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

177 Senwes 27.7 35.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

178 CurroHoldings 27.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

179 PioneerFoodsGroup 27.3 27.6 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

180 RMB 27.3 20.1 51.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

79

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

181 BraitSA 26.9 25.2 40.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

182 Datatec 26.9 21.7 29.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

183 ProtechKhuthele 26.9 22.4 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

184 KagisoMedia 26.5 20.1 23.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

185 MazorGroup 26.1 18.1 25.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

186 BellEquipment 25.7 16.9 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

187 InsimbiRefractoryandAlloysSupplies 25.7 11.0 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

188 RandMerchantInsurance 25.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

189 RaubexGroup 25.7 17.3 24.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

190 SekunjaloInvestments 25.7 25.2 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

191 Mvelaserve 25.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

192 OctodecInvestments 25.3 14.6 16.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

193 Taste 25.3 25.6 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

194 YorkTimber 25.3 23.2 36.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

195 BSISteel 24.9 20.9 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

196 Sephaku 24.9 16.1 11.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

197 VillageMainReefGoldMiningCompany 24.9 13.8 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

198 MercantileBank 24.5 24.4 31.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

199 Afrocentric 24.1 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

200 FountainheadPropertyTrust 24.1 24.8 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

201 IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(IDC) 24.1 40.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

202 JascoElectronics 24.1 24.0 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

203 NutritionalHoldings 24.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

204 Stratcorp 23.7 14.6 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

205 ADvTECH 23.3 22.4 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

206 BaubaPlatinum 23.3 13.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

207 Italtile 23.3 24.8 26.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

208 Nu-World 23.3 18.1 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

209 VukilePropertyFund 23.3 17.3 15.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

210 Silverbridge NC(C) 22.9 18.9 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

| appendix III: Our ranking of GrI compliance continued

80

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

211 CaxtonCTP 22.5 18.1 34.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

212 GrandParadeInvestments 22.5 20.1 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

213 MixTelematics 22.5 19.3 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

214 Mustek 22.5 24.0 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

215 BowlerMetcalf 22.1 9.8 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

216 Capital&CountiesProperties 22.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

217 CentralRandGold 22.1 26.4 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

218 Cullinan 22.1 17.3 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

219 ErbaconInvestment 22.1 20.9 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

220 Foneworx 22.1 19.7 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

221 Petmin 22.1 26.0 27.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

222 CoalofAfrica 21.7 22.4 25.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

223 IFAHotelsandResorts 21.7 11.4 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

224 Invicta 21.7 16.5 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

225 RBA 21.7 20.1 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

226 VividendIncomeFund 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

227 AmalgamatedElectronicCorporation 21.3 17.3 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

228 Ansys 21.3 21.7 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

229 BioscienceBrands 21.3 15.0 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

230 Brikor 21.3 23.2 25.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

231 CadizHoldings 21.3 22.8 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

232 SpurCorporation 21.3 16.5 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

233 Accentuate 20.9 18.1 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

234 CoronationFundManagers 20.9 20.9 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

235 EmiraPropertyFund 20.9 22.0 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

236 ZCI 20.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

237 Clientele 20.6 20.1 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

238 Platfields 20.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

239 AfricanandOverseasEnterprises 20.2 20.1 26.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

240 Datacentrix 20.2 17.3 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

81

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

241 FirstUraniumCorporation 20.2 18.1 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

242 PinnacleTechnology 20.2 20.7 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

243 Sanyati 20.2 20.5 26.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

244 ZurichInsuranceCompanySA 20.2 20.9 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

245 AdrennaPropertyGroup 19.8 14.2 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

246 Metmar 19.8 22.0 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

247 RexTrueformClothingCompany 19.8 24.0 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

248 Trencor 19.8 16.9 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

249 CombinedMotorHoldings 19.4 16.1 25.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

250 FamousBrands 19.4 17.3 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

251 AfricaCellularTowers 19.0 18.1 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

252 AndulelaInvestment 19.0 9.8 11.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

253 BlueFinancialServices 19.0 15.0 33.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

254 HwangeColliery 19.0 13.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

255 RebosisPropertyFund 19.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

256 SantovaLogistics 19.0 17.3 23.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

257 AH-Vest 18.6 27.2 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

258 ArgentIndustrial 18.6 14.6 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

259 JubileePlatinum 18.6 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

260 Spanjaard 18.6 10.6 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

261 AcucapProperties 18.2 13.4 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

262 BKone 18.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

263 ConduitCapital 18.2 13.0 15.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

264 CrookesBrothers 18.2 31.5 26.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

265 KWV 18.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

266 Putprop 18.2 13.0 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

267 RGTSMARTMarketIntelligence 18.2 15.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

268 SouthernElectricityCompany(SELCo) 18.2 13.0 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

269 CompuClearingOutsourcing 17.8 17.7 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

270 RacecGroup 17.8 18.5 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

| appendix III: Our ranking of GrI compliance continued

82

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

271 Randgold&ExplorationCompany 17.8 12.2 16.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

272 Wescoal 17.8 16.1 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

273 AlertSteel 17.4 15.0 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

274 GoldOneInternational 17.4 16.5 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

275 Infrasors 17.4 23.2 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

276 PurpleCapital 17.4 15.0 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

277 ZederInvestments 17.4 14.6 13.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

278 Cafca 17.0 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

279 DipulaIncomeFund 17.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

280 HugeGroup 17.0 18.5 13.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

281 PSGGroup 17.0 17.7 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

282 Interwaste 16.6 11.8 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

283 Metrofile 16.6 22.4 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

284 ResilientPropertyIncomeFund 16.6 11.8 18.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

285 Sabvest 16.6 18.1 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

286 Simmer&JackMines 16.6 22.4 38.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

287 TotalClientServices 16.6 24.0 18.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

288 AfricanDawnCapital 16.2 12.2 15.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

289 Poynting 16.2 11.4 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

290 WGWearne 16.2 16.9 26.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

291 CapitalPropertyFund 15.8 11.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

292 ELBGroup 15.8 13.8 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

293 FairvestPropertyHoldings 15.8 12.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

294 Shoprite 15.8 50.0 34.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

295 Skinwell 15.8 18.5 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

296 Diamondcorp 15.4 12.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

297 GoliathGoldMining 15.4 10.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

298 TrustcoGroup 15.4 12.6 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

299 Ububele 15.4 16.9 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

300 WilliamTell 15.4 16.5 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

83

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

301 ConvergeNet 15.0 15.0 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

302 IquadGroup 15.0 21.7 23.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

303 MvelaphandaGroup 15.0 20.9 26.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

304 QuantumPropertyGroup 15.0 20.5 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

305 Rare 15.0 17.3 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

306 Cashbuild 14.6 18.5 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

307 Dorbyl 14.6 12.6 15.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

308 Ellies 14.6 20.5 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

309 GoodersonLeisureCorporation 14.6 18.9 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

310 ISA 14.6 20.5 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

311 Imuniti 14.6 15.0 16.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

312 PallinghurstResources 14.6 9.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

313 ReinetInvestments 14.6 10.6 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

314 SycomPropertyFund 14.6 10.6 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

315 PBTGroup 14.2 13.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

316 Thabex 14.2 15.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

317 VunaniPropertyInvestmentFund 14.2 13.0 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

318 HardwareWarehouse 13.8 15.0 15.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

319 IndependentPowerSouthernAfrica(IPSAGroup) 13.8 12.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

320 IndequityGroup 13.8 11.8 16.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

321 LabatAfrica 13.8 13.8 18.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

322 Telemasters 13.8 14.2 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

323 AfricanBrickCentre 13.4 14.2 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

324 AfricanMediaEntertainment 13.4 13.8 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

325 Excellerate 13.4 18.9 24.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

326 Net1UEPSTechnologies 13.4 11.0 14.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

327 Tradehold 13.4 14.2 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

328 FortressIncomeFund 13.0 11.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

329 JohnDanielHoldings 13.0 13.0 12.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

330 MirandaMineralHoldings 13.0 14.2 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

| appendix III: Our ranking of GrI compliance continued

84

Profile Disclosures Economic Environment Labour Human Rights Social Product Responsibility

■ Areasonableresponse=2of2■ Apartialresponse=1of2■ Noresponse=0of2 GR

Iapplicationlevel

GRI+13ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+12ComplianceScore(%)

GRI+11ComplianceScore(%)

Strategy&Analysis(2Indicators)

OrganisationalProfile(10Indicators)

ReportProfile(4Indicators)

Scope&Boundary(7Indicators)

GRIContentIndex(1Indicator)

Assurance(1Indicator)

Governance,Commitments&Engagement(10Indicators)

CommitmenttoExternalInitiatives(3Indicators)

StakeholderEngagement(4Indicators)

ManagementApproachDisclosures(6Indicators)

EconomicPerformance(4Indicators)

MarketPresence(3Indicators)

IndirectEconomicAspects(2Indicators)

Materials(2Indicators)

Energy(5Indicators)

Water(3Indicators)

Biodiversity(5Indicators)

Emissions,Effluent&Waste(10Indicators)

Products&Services(2Indicators)

Compliance(1Indicator)

Transport(1Indicator)

Overall(1Indicator)

Employment(3Indicators)

Labour/ManagementRelations(2Indicators)

OccupationalHealth&Safety(4Indicators)

Training&Education(3Indicators)

Diversity&EqualOpportunity(2Indicators)

Investment&ProcurementPractices(3Indicators)

Non-discrimination(1Indicator)

FreedomofAssociation(1Indicator)

ChildLabour(1Indicator)

ForcedLabour(1Indicator)

SecurityPractices(1Indicator)

IndigenousRights(1Indicator)

Community(1Indicator)

Corruption(3Indicators)

PublicPolicy(2Indicators)

Anti-CompetitiveBehaviour(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

CustomerHealth&Safety(2Indicators)

Product&ServiceLabelling(3Indicators)

Marketing&Communications(2Indicators)

CustomerPrivacy(1Indicator)

Compliance(1Indicator)

331 ResourceGeneration 13.0 13.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

332 SeardelInvestmentCorporation 13.0 19.7 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

333 1Time 12.6 18.9 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

334 Chrometco 12.6 15.0 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

335 IngenuityPropertyInvestments 12.6 13.8 15.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

336 NewAfricaInvestments 12.6 18.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

337 OrionRealEstate 12.6 12.2 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

338 PremiumProperties 12.6 15.7 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

339 RealAfricaHoldings 12.6 12.6 15.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

340 SAFrench 12.6 13.0 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

341 Sacoil 12.6 12.6 14.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

342 CapevinInvestments 12.3 11.8 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

343 DonGroup 12.3 15.0 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

344 Intertrading 12.3 14.8 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

345 NictusBeperk 12.3 11.8 18.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

346 Securedata 12.3 20.5 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

347 LondonFinance&InvestmentGroup 11.9 10.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

348 MoneyWeb 11.9 15.4 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

349 OasisCrescentPropertyFund 11.9 10.2 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

350 KiboMining 11.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

351 Sable 11.5 15.4 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

352 RECM&Calibre 11.1 13.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

353 RockwellDiamonds 11.1 9.8 15.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

354 TrematonCapitalInvestments 11.1 11.4 15.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

355 ChamberofMines 10.7 10.2 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

356 SeaKay 10.7 16.5 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

357 NewCorpcapital 10.3 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

358 StellaVistaTechnologies 10.3 13.4 14.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

359 AwethuBreweries 9.9 11.0 15.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

360 FirestoneEnergy 9.5 13.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

361 IdecoGroup 8.7 11.0 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

362 FoordCompass 7.9 11.0 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

363 MineWasteSolutions 5.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

85

GRI-Based Reports Non-GRI Reports

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART I: Profile Disclosures1. Strategy and Analysis

1.1 Statementfromthemostseniordecision-makeroftheorganisation 99 28 1 88,3 91,0 65 134 36 56,2 56,8

1.2 Descriptionofkeyimpacts,risks,andopportunities. 104 22 2 89,8 89,5 85 88 62 54,9 49,1

2. Organisational Profile

2.1 Nameoftheorganisation. 128 0 0 100,0 100,0 235 0 0 100,0 100,0

2.2 Primarybrands,products,and/orservices. 128 0 0 100,0 99,0 227 6 2 97,9 95,0

2.3 Operationalstructureoftheorganisation,includingmaindivisions,operatingcompanies,subsidiaries,andjointventures. 122 6 0 97,7 94,0 205 13 17 90,0 75,9

2.4 Locationoforganisation’sheadquarters. 124 4 0 98,4 98,0 210 11 14 91,7 95,5

2.5 Numberofcountrieswheretheorganisationoperates,andnamesofcountrieswitheithermajoroperationsorthatarespecificallyrelevanttothesustainabilityissuescoveredinthereport. 115 13 0 94,9 95,0 151 35 49 71,7 68,7

2.6 Natureofownershipandlegalform. 124 4 0 98,4 91,0 203 21 11 90,9 82,5

2.7 Marketsserved(includinggeographicbreakdown,sectorsserved,andtypesofcustomers/beneficiaries). 115 12 1 94,5 92,5 142 44 49 69,8 64,9

2.8 Scaleofthereportingorganisation. 122 6 0 97,7 95,0 182 43 10 86,6 64,7

2.9 Significantchangesduringthereportingperiodregardingsize,structure,orownership. 113 11 4 92,6 87,5 137 3 95 58,9 70,9

2.10 Awardsreceivedinthereportingperiod. 104 9 15 84,8 76,5 39 2 194 17,0 11,8

3. Report Parameters

3.1 Reportingperiod(e.g.,fiscal/calendaryear)forinformationprovided. 109 19 0 92,6 86,0 167 67 1 85,3 62,2

3.2 Dateofmostrecentpreviousreport(ifany). 74 37 17 72,3 73,0 31 37 167 21,1 38,9

3.3 Reportingcycle(annual,biennial,etc.) 126 0 2 98,4 100,0 231 1 3 98,5 97,6

3.4 Contactpointforquestionsregardingthereportoritscontents. 108 9 11 87,9 76,5 58 53 124 36,0 51,7

3.5 Processfordefiningreportcontent. 106 20 2 90,6 93,0 54 54 127 34,5 35,1

3.6 Boundaryofthereport(e.g.,countries,divisions,subsidiaries,leasedfacilities,jointventures,suppliers).SeeGRIBoundaryProtocolforfurtherguidance. 115 10 3 93,8 73,5 72 13 150 33,4 18,3

3.7 Stateanyspecificlimitationsonthescopeorboundaryofthereport(seecompletenessprincipleforexplanationofscope). 101 13 14 84,0 60,0 54 3 178 23,6 2,9

3.8 Basisforreportingonjointventures,subsidiaries,leasedfacilities,outsourcedoperations,andotherentitiesthatcansignificantlyaffectcomparabilityfromperiodtoperiodand/orbetweenorganisations. 102 18 8 86,7 53,0 43 9 183 20,2 7,4

3.9 Datameasurementtechniquesandthebasesofcalculations,includingassumptionsandtechniquesunderlyingestimationsappliedtothecompilationoftheIndicatorsandotherinformationinthereport.Explainanydecisionsnottoapply,ortosubstantiallydivergefrom,theGRIIndicatorProtocols. 67 26 35 62,5 60,5 15 9 211 8,3 3,8

3.10 Explanationoftheeffectofanyre-statementsofinformationprovidedinearlierreports,andthereasonsforsuchre-statement(e.g.,mergers/acquisitions,changeofbaseyears/periods,natureofbusiness,measurementmethods). 84 22 22 74,2 61,0 18 6 211 8,9 5,7

3.11 Significantchangesfrompreviousreportingperiodsinthescope,boundary,ormeasurementmethodsappliedinthereport. 98 14 16 82,0 53,5 59 4 172 26,0 6,5

3.12 TableidentifyingthelocationoftheStandardDisclosuresinthereport. 95 26 7 84,4 78,5 0 0 235 0,0 0,7

3.13 Policyandcurrentpracticewithregardtoseekingexternalassuranceforthereport. 110 3 15 87,1 74,0 29 8 198 14,0 1,74. Governance, Commitments, and Engagement

4.1 Governancestructureoftheorganisation,includingcommitteesunderthehighestgovernancebodyresponsibleforspecifictasks,suchassettingstrategyororganisationaloversight. 128 0 0 100,0 92,0 229 5 1 98,5 66,4

4.2 IndicatewhethertheChairofthehighestgovernancebodyisalsoanexecutiveofficer. 125 2 1 98,4 96,0 227 3 5 97,2 91,8

4.3 Fororganisationsthathaveaunitaryboardstructure,statethenumberofmembersofthehighestgovernancebodythatareindependentand/ornon-executivemembers. 125 3 0 98,8 94,5 223 7 5 96,4 92,8

4.4 Mechanismsforshareholdersandemployeestoproviderecommendationsordirectiontothehighestgovernancebody. 97 29 2 87,1 83,5 55 52 128 34,5 48,1

4.5 Linkagebetweencompensationformembersofthehighestgovernancebody,seniormanagers,andexecutives(includingdeparturearrangements),andtheorganisation’sperformance(includingsocialandenvironmentalperformance). 41 63 24 56,6 64,5 7 109 119 26,2 37,0

4.6 Processesinplaceforthehighestgovernancebodytoensureconflictsofinterestareavoided. 109 8 11 88,3 72,0 147 13 75 65,3 31,2

Appendix IV: Responses per GRI Indicator

86

GRI-Based Reports Non-GRI Reports

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART I: Profile Disclosures continued4. Governance, Commitments, and Engagement continued

4.7 Processfordeterminingthequalificationsandexpertiseofthemembersofthehighestgovernancebodyforguidingtheorganisation’sstrategyoneconomic,environmental,andsocialtopics. 34 81 13 58,2 60,5 16 123 96 33,0 40,1

4.8 Internallydevelopedstatementsofmissionorvalues,codesofconduct,andprinciplesrelevanttoeconomic,environmental,andsocialperformanceandthestatusoftheirimplementation. 64 55 9 71,5 76,5 49 104 82 43,0 47,1

4.9 Proceduresofthehighestgovernancebodyforoverseeingtheorganisation’sidentificationandmanagementofeconomic,environmental,andsocialperformance,includingrelevantrisksandopportunities,andadherenceorcompliancewithinternationallyagreedstandards,codesofconduct,andprinciples. 114 9 5 92,6 76,5 114 67 54 62,8 20,5

4.10 Processesforevaluatingthehighestgovernancebody’sownperformance,particularlywithrespecttoeconomic,environmental,andsocialperformance. 52 57 19 62,9 61,0 43 66 126 32,3 21,9

4.11 Explanationofwhetherandhowtheprecautionaryapproachorprincipleisaddressedbytheorganisation. 76 14 38 64,8 77,0 51 27 157 27,4 43,2

4.12 Externallydevelopedeconomic,environmental,andsocialcharters,principles,orotherinitiativestowhichtheorganisationsubscribesorendorses. 85 31 12 78,5 89,0 109 78 48 63,0 34,9

4.13 Membershipsinassociations(suchasindustryassociations)and/ornational/internationaladvocacyorganisationsinwhichtheorganisation:*Haspositionsingovernancebodies;*Participatesinprojectsorcommittees;*Providessubstantivefundingbeyondroutinemembershipdues;or*Viewsmembershipasstrategic. 94 3 31 74,6 76,5 46 13 176 22,3 13,2

4.14 Listofstakeholdergroupsengagedbytheorganisation. 117 6 5 93,8 87,5 109 20 106 50,6 17,5

4.15 Basisforidentificationandselectionofstakeholderswithwhomtoengage. 71 18 39 62,5 57,5 30 13 192 15,5 4,1

4.16 Approachestostakeholderengagement,includingfrequencyofengagementbytypeandbystakeholdergroup. 69 48 11 72,7 72,5 45 66 124 33,2 23,8

4.17 Keytopicsandconcernsthathavebeenraisedthroughstakeholderengagement,andhowtheorganisationhasrespondedtothosekeytopicsandconcerns,includingthroughitsreporting. 67 22 39 60,9 58,0 22 22 191 14,0 3,4

STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART II: Disclosures on Management Approach (DMAs)G3 DMA Description

DMAEC DisclosureonManagementApproachforEconomicIndicators 75 32 21 71,1 50,0 30 60 145 25,5 4,3

DMAEN DisclosureonManagementApproachforEnvironmentalIndicators 54 40 34 57,8 51,0 8 41 186 12,1 4,3

DMALA DisclosureonManagementApproachforLabourIndicators 61 46 21 65,6 50,5 13 44 178 14,9 3,9

DMAHR DisclosureonManagementApproachforHumanRightsIndicators 33 28 67 36,7 30,0 1 7 227 1,9 1,0

DMASO DisclosureonManagementApproachforSocialIndicators 38 52 38 50,0 35,5 4 30 201 8,1 2,2

DMAPR DisclosureonManagementApproachforProductResponsibilityIndicators 36 29 63 39,5 35,0 0 11 224 2,3 0,9

STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART III: Performance IndicatorsEconomic

EC1 Directeconomicvaluegeneratedanddistributed,includingrevenues,operatingcosts,employeecompensation,donationsandothercommunityinvestments,retainedearnings,andpaymentstocapitalprovidersandgovernments. 106 20 2 90,6 85,5 65 73 97 43,2 56,7

EC2 Financialimplicationsandotherrisksandopportunitiesfortheorganisation’sactivitiesduetoclimatechange. 72 9 47 59,8 56,5 9 2 224 4,3 3,1

EC3 Coverageoftheorganisation’sdefinedbenefitplanobligations. 100 4 24 79,7 80,5 94 13 128 42,8 53,8

EC4 Significantfinancialassistancereceivedfromgovernment. 69 9 50 57,4 47,5 1 0 234 0,4 1,7

EC5 Rangeofratiosofstandardentrylevelwagecomparedtolocalminimumwageatsignificantlocationsofoperation. 21 13 94 21,5 26,0 0 1 234 0,2 0,9

EC6 Policy,practices,andproportionofspendingonlocally-basedsuppliersatsignificantlocationsofoperation. 73 35 20 70,7 80,0 38 22 175 20,9 21,6

EC7 Proceduresforlocalhiringandproportionofseniormanagementhiredfromthelocalcommunityatsignificantlocationsofoperation. 56 27 45 54,3 72,5 39 22 174 21,3 25,9

EC8 Developmentandimpactofinfrastructureinvestmentsandservicesprovidedprimarilyforpublicbenefitthroughcommercial,in-kind,orprobonoengagement. 95 9 24 77,7 93,5 71 26 138 35,7 35,4

EC9 Understandinganddescribingsignificantindirecteconomicimpacts,includingtheextentofimpacts. 54 30 44 53,9 59,5 22 7 206 10,9 14,2Environmental

EN1 Materialsusedbyweightorvolume. 35 20 73 35,2 41,5 3 4 228 2,1 2,2

EN2 Percentageofmaterialsusedthatarerecycledinputmaterials. 21 26 81 26,6 34,0 0 6 229 1,3 3,8

EN3 Directenergyconsumptionbyprimaryenergysource. 63 24 41 58,6 58,5 12 7 216 6,6 5,7

EN4 Indirectenergyconsumptionbyprimarysource. 67 27 34 62,9 56,5 12 15 208 8,3 2,2

87

| appendix IV: responses per GrI indicator continued

GRI-Based Reports Non-GRI Reports

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART III: Performance Indicators continuedEnvironmental

EN5 Energysavedduetoconservationandefficiencyimprovements. 31 20 77 32,0 51,5 8 9 218 5,3 6,2

EN6 Initiativestoprovideenergy-efficientorrenewableenergybasedproductsandservices,andreductionsinenergyrequirementsasaresultoftheseinitiatives. 30 35 63 37,1 46,5 9 20 206 8,1 9,2

EN7 Initiativestoreduceindirectenergyconsumptionandreductionsachieved. 34 39 55 41,8 56,5 8 32 195 10,2 4,3

EN8 Totalwaterwithdrawalbysource. 49 39 40 53,5 61,0 6 19 210 6,6 3,3

EN9 Watersourcessignificantlyaffectedbywithdrawalofwater. 36 13 79 33,2 32,0 2 2 231 1,3 0,7

EN10 Percentageandtotalvolumeofwaterrecycledandreused. 28 20 80 29,7 32,0 2 11 222 3,2 3,3

EN11 Locationandsizeoflandowned,leased,managedin,oradjacentto,protectedareasandareasofhighbiodiversityvalueoutsideprotectedareas. 51 11 66 44,1 48,5 7 5 223 4,0 1,5

EN12 Descriptionofsignificantimpactsofactivities,products,andservicesonbiodiversityinprotectedareasandareasofhighbiodiversityvalueoutsideprotectedareas. 37 14 77 34,4 43,5 4 1 230 1,9 2,4

EN13 Habitatsprotectedorrestored. 30 17 81 30,1 33,0 6 5 224 3,6 1,5

EN14 Strategies,currentactions,andfutureplansformanagingimpactsonbiodiversity. 44 6 78 36,7 39,5 6 3 226 3,2 6,2

EN15 NumberofIUCNRedListspeciesandnationalconservationlistspecieswithhabitatsinareasaffectedbyoperations,bylevelofextinctionrisk. 24 8 96 21,9 27,5 0 1 234 0,2 0,3

EN16 Totaldirectandindirectgreenhousegasemissionsbyweight. 73 12 43 61,7 67,0 22 7 206 10,9 3,3

EN17 Otherrelevantindirectgreenhousegasemissionsbyweight. 42 5 81 34,8 43,0 7 1 227 3,2 1,5

EN18 Initiativestoreducegreenhousegasemissionsandreductionsachieved. 39 28 61 41,4 61,0 7 12 216 5,5 8,9

EN19 Emissionsofozone-depletingsubstancesbyweight. 26 4 98 21,9 25,5 2 0 233 0,9 0,7

EN20 NOx,SOx,andothersignificantairemissionsbytypeandweight. 31 7 90 27,0 32,0 1 2 232 0,9 0,5

EN21 Totalwaterdischargebyqualityanddestination. 20 19 89 23,0 31,0 2 2 231 1,3 0,7

EN22 Totalweightofwastebytypeanddisposalmethod. 39 32 57 43,0 49,0 7 13 215 5,7 5,1

EN23 Totalnumberandvolumeofsignificantspills. 52 13 63 45,7 59,0 5 5 225 3,2 5,5

EN24 Weightoftransported,imported,exported,ortreatedwastedeemedhazardousunderthetermsoftheBaselConventionAnnexI,II,III,andVIII,andpercentageoftransportedwasteshippedinternationally. 21 11 96 20,7 30,5 0 2 233 0,4 0,5

EN25 Identity,size,protectedstatus,andbiodiversityvalueofwaterbodiesandrelatedhabitatssignificantlyaffectedbythereportingorganisation’sdischargesofwaterandrunoff. 21 12 95 21,1 22,5 0 1 234 0,2 0,5

EN26 Initiativestomitigateenvironmentalimpactsofproductsandservices,andextentofimpactmitigation. 42 29 57 44,1 56,0 13 17 205 9,1 10,1

EN27 Percentageofproductssoldandtheirpackagingmaterialsthatarereclaimedbycategory. 20 12 96 20,3 25,5 1 0 234 0,4 1,4

EN28 Monetaryvalueofsignificantfinesandtotalnumberofnon-monetarysanctionsfornon-compliancewithenvironmentallawsandregulations. 88 8 32 71,9 67,0 12 4 219 6,0 5,3

EN29 Significantenvironmentalimpactsoftransportingproductsandothergoodsandmaterialsusedfortheorganisation’soperations,andtransportingmembersoftheworkforce. 28 16 84 28,1 27,0 6 4 225 3,4 1,2

EN30 Totalenvironmentalprotectionexpendituresandinvestmentsbytype. 25 9 94 23,0 22,0 4 3 228 2,3 1,2Social: Labour Practices and Decent Work

LA1 Totalworkforcebyemploymenttype,employmentcontract,andregion. 50 67 11 65,2 78,0 13 60 162 18,3 23,6

LA2 Totalnumberandrateofemployeeturnoverbyagegroup,gender,andregion. 38 49 41 48,8 55,5 2 32 201 7,7 5,5

LA3 Benefitsprovidedtofull-timeemployeesthatarenotprovidedtotemporaryorpart-timeemployees,bymajoroperations. 57 8 63 47,7 43,0 8 1 226 3,6 8,2

LA4 Percentageofemployeescoveredbycollectivebargainingagreements. 88 6 34 71,1 74,5 21 14 200 11,9 10,4

LA5 Minimumnoticeperiod’sregardingsignificantoperationalchanges,includingwhetheritisspecifiedincollectiveagreements. 37 9 82 32,4 36,5 1 2 232 0,9 0,5

LA6 Percentageoftotalworkforcerepresentedinformaljointmanagement-workerhealthandsafetycommitteesthathelpmonitorandadviseonoccupationalhealthandsafetyprogrammes. 26 28 74 31,3 44,5 3 20 212 5,5 5,5

LA7 Ratesofinjury,occupationaldiseases,lostdays,andabsenteeism,andnumberofwork-relatedfatalitiesbyregion. 64 43 21 66,8 78,0 15 38 182 14,5 15,8

LA8 Education,training,counselling,prevention,andrisk-controlprogrammesinplacetoassistworkforcemembers,theirfamilies,orcommunitymembersregardingseriousdiseases. 95 15 18 80,1 87,5 44 37 154 26,6 30,7

88

GRI-Based Reports Non-GRI Reports

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

Full

Res

po

nse

s

Par

tial

R

esp

on

ses

No

n-r

esp

on

ses

GR

I+13

Sco

re

(%)

GR

I+12

Sco

re

(%)

STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART III: Performance Indicators continuedSocial: Labour Practices and Decent Work continued

LA9 Healthandsafetytopicscoveredinformalagreementswithtradeunions. 17 13 98 18,4 26,5 0 0 235 0,0 1,7LA10 Averagehoursoftrainingperyearperemployeebyemployeecategory. 30 61 37 47,3 59,0 3 37 195 9,1 12,8LA11 Programmesforskillsmanagementandlifelonglearningthatsupportthecontinuedemployabilityofemployeesandassisttheminmanagingcareerendings. 83 11 34 69,1 81,5 42 21 172 22,3 36,5LA12 Percentageofemployeesreceivingregularperformanceandcareerdevelopmentreviews. 40 23 65 40,2 50,5 10 17 208 7,9 7,5LA13 Compositionofgovernancebodiesandbreakdownofemployeespercategoryaccordingtogender,agegroup,minoritygroupmembership,andother

indicatorsofdiversity. 53 52 23 61,7 77,5 12 64 159 18,7 23,6LA14 Ratioofbasicsalaryofmentowomenbyemployeecategory. 44 3 81 35,5 30,0 3 3 229 1,9 1,2Social: Human Rights

HR1 Percentageandtotalnumberofsignificantinvestmentagreementsthatincludehumanrightsclausesorthathaveundergonehumanrightsscreening. 12 16 100 15,6 18,5 1 2 232 0,9 1,4HR2 Percentageofsignificantsuppliersandcontractorsthathaveundergonescreeningonhumanrightsandactionstaken. 16 22 90 21,1 18,0 1 1 233 0,6 1,5HR3 Totalhoursofemployeetrainingonpoliciesandproceduresconcerningaspectsofhumanrightsthatarerelevanttooperations,includingthepercentage

ofemployeestrained. 14 14 100 16,4 21,0 1 1 233 0,6 1,5HR4 Totalnumberofincidentsofdiscriminationandactionstaken. 72 7 49 59,0 49,0 9 4 222 4,7 8,4HR5 Operationsidentifiedinwhichtherighttoexercisefreedomofassociationandcollectivebargainingmaybeatsignificantrisk,andactionstakentosupport

theserights. 56 7 65 46,5 57,0 3 4 228 2,1 7,2HR6 Operationsidentifiedashavingsignificantriskforincidentsofchildlabour,andmeasurestakentocontributetotheeliminationofchildlabour. 70 6 52 57,0 54,5 8 4 223 4,3 3,4HR7 Operationsidentifiedashavingsignificantriskforincidentsofforcedorcompulsorylabour,andmeasurestocontributetotheeliminationofforced

orcompulsorylabour. 65 7 56 53,5 49,0 7 4 224 3,8 2,9HR8 Percentageofsecuritypersonneltrainedintheorganisation’spoliciesorproceduresconcerningaspectsofhumanrightsthatarerelevanttooperations. 29 5 94 24,6 18,5 0 0 235 0,0 0,2HR9 Totalnumberofincidentsofviolationsinvolvingrightsofindigenouspeopleandactionstaken. 48 3 77 38,7 30,5 5 3 227 2,8 2,2Social: Society

SO1 Nature,scope,andeffectivenessofanyprogrammesandpracticesthatassessandmanagetheimpactsofoperationsoncommunities,includingentering,operating,andexiting. 34 56 38 48,4 55,5 18 44 173 17,0 14,2

SO2 Percentageandtotalnumberofbusinessunitsanalysedforrisksrelatedtocorruption. 36 16 76 34,4 45,5 6 3 226 3,2 4,6SO3 Percentageofemployeestrainedinorganisation’santi-corruptionpoliciesandprocedures. 34 20 74 34,4 37,0 2 5 228 1,9 3,8SO4 Actionstakeninresponsetoincidentsofcorruption. 70 8 50 57,8 53,5 12 0 223 5,1 9,6SO5 Publicpolicypositionsandparticipationinpublicpolicydevelopmentandlobbying. 51 6 71 42,2 41,5 9 1 225 4,0 0,5SO6 Totalvalueoffinancialandin-kindcontributionstopoliticalparties,politicians,andrelatedinstitutionsbycountry. 67 5 56 54,3 57,5 18 0 217 7,7 4,1SO7 Totalnumberoflegalactionsforanti-competitivebehaviour,anti-trust,andmonopolypracticesandtheiroutcomes. 62 6 60 50,8 46,0 11 1 223 4,9 4,5SO8 Monetaryvalueofsignificantfinesandtotalnumberofnon-monetarysanctionsfornon-compliancewithlawsandregulations. 82 9 37 67,6 54,0 27 1 207 11,7 6,0Social: Product Responsibility

PR1 Lifecyclestagesinwhichhealthandsafetyimpactsofproductsandservicesareassessedforimprovement,andpercentageofsignificantproductsandservicescategoriessubjecttosuchprocedures. 41 18 69 39,1 39,0 8 4 223 4,3 3,6

PR2 Totalnumberofincidentsofnon-compliancewithregulationsandvoluntarycodesconcerninghealthandsafetyimpactsofproductsandservicesduringtheirlifecycle,bytypeofoutcomes. 56 5 67 45,7 37,0 4 1 230 1,9 2,4

PR3 Typeofproductandserviceinformationrequiredbyprocedures,andpercentageofsignificantproductsandservicessubjecttosuchinformationrequirements. 42 10 76 36,7 35,5 2 1 232 1,1 2,2PR4 Totalnumberofincidentsofnon-compliancewithregulationsandvoluntarycodesconcerningproductandserviceinformationandlabelling,bytypeofoutcomes. 46 9 73 39,5 35,5 3 0 232 1,3 1,9PR5 Practicesrelatedtocustomersatisfaction,includingresultsofsurveysmeasuringcustomersatisfaction. 41 23 64 41,0 50,5 3 8 224 3,0 6,0PR6 Programmesforadherencetolaws,standards,andvoluntarycodesrelatedtomarketingcommunications,includingadvertising,promotion,andsponsorship. 48 5 75 39,5 46,0 3 0 232 1,3 2,1PR7 Totalnumberofincidentsofnon-compliancewithregulationsandvoluntarycodesconcerningmarketingcommunications,includingadvertising,promotion,

andsponsorshipbytypeofoutcomes. 54 3 71 43,4 34,5 2 0 233 0,9 2,2PR8 Totalnumberofsubstantiatedcomplaintsregardingbreachesofcustomerprivacyandlossesofcustomerdata. 50 6 72 41,4 36,0 0 1 234 0,2 1,4PR9 Monetaryvalueofsignificantfinesfornon-compliancewithlawsandregulationsconcerningtheprovisionanduseofproductsandservices. 70 4 54 56,3 43,5 7 0 228 3,0 3,1

89

90

Steeds die beste manier om invloedryke beleggers te bereik Navorsing deur AMPS 2011 AB toon dat Afrikaanssprekendes die Suid-Afrikaanse ekonomie se sleutelspelers is en een van die belangrikste plaaslike belegging-segmente verteenwoordig. Hulle is voorts toekomsgerig en verbind tot die land se welvaart. Hierdie faktore is belangrik in die debat rondom die veranderende vereistes vir finansiële verslagdoening. Een van dié veranderinge is die voorgestelde JSE-regulasie dat maatskappye vanaf Januarie 2013 nie meer hul resultate in twee

tale in die gedrukte media hoef aan te kondig nie.

Die navorsing het bevind dat Afrikaanssprekende Suid-Afri-kaners, waarvan 72% in die LSM 8-, 9- en 10-kategorie val, sewe keer meer geneig is om in die aandelemark te belê as die gemid-delde Suid-Afrikaner. Trouens, een uit elke vier beleggers op die JSE is Afrikaanssprekend. Boonop verkies 71% van beleggers om in hul moedertaal te lees. Sake24 in Beeld bereik die meeste Afrikaans-sprekende beleggers.

In moeilike ekonomiese omstan-dig hede is dit te verstane dat maat skappye hul nakomings koste wil verminder. Maar dit moet nie doeltreffende kommunikasie met bestaande aandeelhouers, moontlike beleggers en ander belanghebbers in die wiele ry nie. Gegewende verskeie plaaslike en internasionale gebeure, waarvan die wêreld se belangrikste maat-skap pye betrokke is, is die nasio-nale en internasionale tendens om meer inligting beskikbaar te maak – nie minder nie. Afrikaans spre-

kendes het massiewe koop krag van meer as R300 miljard wat jaarliks bestee word – ’n derde van Suid-Afrika se verbrui kers besteding. Hulle maak slegs 14% van die bevolking uit, maar hulle verteen-woordig 21% van die waarde.

Uiteindelik gaan effektiewe kom-munikasie nie oor die nakoming van minimumvereistes nie. Die belangrikste is om die mense wat jou besigheid laat floreer, te bereik en sodoende die hoogste opbrengs op jou belegging te verseker.

AMPS 2011 AB NAVORSING

www.sake24.comepos: sake@sake24.comJohannesburg 011 713 9000Pretoria 012 424 6000Kaapstad 021 406 2121Port Elizabeth 041 503 6111Bloemfontein 051 4047600

4Argentinië4Brasilië4Chili4China en Hongkong4Colombia4Tsjeggiese Republiek4Egipte4Ghana4Indië4Kazakstan4Korea4Maleisië4Mexiko4Nigerië4Pole4Katar4Rusland4Saoedi-Arabië4Suid-Afrika4Thailand4Turkye4Oekraïne4Verenigde Arabiese Emirate4Viëtnam

* 25 snels groeiende ekonomieë

Appendix V: Useful Contacts and Links

ThefollowingisalistofknownsustainabilityreportingpractitionersoperatingintheSAmarket,including24companiesthathaveoptedtosupportIRASinourdoggedattempttohelpinformthediscussionaroundsustainability/integratedreportingandassurance.

Anyoneseekingguidanceand/orsupportwithauthorship,assurance,advisory,reportdesignand/orlayout,training,databaseand/orCDPservicesisencouragedtousetheadsinthisreport,andthefollowingtable,toidentifyserviceproviderswhowouldbebestpoisedtotenderforservices.

Thecostofourlaunchevent,andtheprintingofthe800copiesofthisreport,isbornebyourpeerswhopurchaseadspace,andwethankeachandeveryoneofthemforsharingthejourneywithus.

Interestingly,thisyear’s‘OtherSRPs’databaseconsistsof59serviceproviders(upfrom50in2011,and25inour2010report).Onceagain,weoptedtoprovideadditionalserviceproviders,includingdatasystemsdevelopersandCarbonDisclosureProject(CDP)specialists.

Pleasenotethatthislistrepresentstheknowledgeat-hand,asof30June2012.PleasecontactThembi(thembi@iras.co.za),ifwehaveoverlookedanyother‘unknown’.Pleaseforwardtheirdetailstosothattheycanbeaddedtothedatabaseonourwebsite.

ForaccesstoasearchabledatabaseoftheSRPNetwork,tosearchourdatabaseofreports,ortodownloadadditionalresourcematerials,gotoourwebsiteatwww.iras.co.za.

ForinformationaboutAccountAbility,includingtheirAA1000ASAssuranceStandard,ortheirAA1000SESStakeholderEngagementStandard,gototheirwebsiteatwww.accountability.org.

ForinformationabouttheGlobalReportingInitiative,includingtheirGRIG3Guidelines,gototheirwebsiteatwww.globalreporting.org.

Organisation Au

tho

rsh

ip

Ass

ura

nce

Ad

viso

ry

Des

ign

/la

you

t

Dat

a sy

stem

s

Trai

nin

g

CD

P

serv

ices

Contact person Email address Gau

ten

g

Wes

tern

C

ape

KZ

N

IntegratedReporting&AssuranceServices X X X X MichaelH.Rea michael@csap.co.za X

AHCommunications X X X AnneHeath anneh@ahcomm.co.za X

Assuredex X X KopanoXaba kopano@empowerdex.com X

BastionGraphics X X X X AdeleLotter adele@bastion.bz X

BDOSouthAfrica X X UrsulavanEck uvaneck@bdo.co.za X X X

CorporateLeap X X AndrewBromley andrew@corporateleap.com X

Credit360 X X IainMcGhee iain.mcghee@credit360.com

Earth.incenvironment+sustainability X X X ThomasvanViegen thomas@earthinc.co.za X

EnlightenedEnergy X X X X X KimberlyvanNiekerk kvanniekerk@enlenergy.com X

Environmental&SustainabilitySolutions X X X X SeakleGodschalk envsustsol@mweb.co.za X

EnvisageInvestor&CorporateRelations X X X MichèleMackey michele@envisagesa.co.za X

GlobalCarbonExchange X X X X X KevinJames kevinj@globalcarbonexchange.com X

GrantThornton X X X X JamesBrice jbrice@gt.co.za X

HKLM X X X JuliaLeuner jleuner@hklmgroup.com X X

InciteSustainability X X X JonHanks jon@incite.co.za X

ITBMedia X X X RosaliePike rosalie@itbmedia.co.za X

MaxxCorporateCommunications X X BerdineBosman berdine@maxx.co.za X

NextGenerationConsultants X X X ReanaRossouw rrossouw@nextgeneration.co.za X

PEInternational X X X X MarkusReichardt m.reichardt@pe-international.com X

PKFConsulting X X X ClaireJennings claire.jennings@pkf.co.za X

PurpleFrogCommunications X X PatriciaUtton patricia@purplefrog.co.za X

Russell&Associates X X X X CharmaneRussell charmane@rair.co.za X

SDToolkit X MarkBecking mark.becking@sdtoolkit.com X

Studio5 X X X GlennO’Hearne glenn@studio5.co.za X

Trialogue X X RobWorthington-Smith rob@trialogue.co.za X X

UltraLitho X ColinFinck colinf@ultra-litho.co.za X

The cost of producing this report is borne by IRAS, both in terms of opportunity cost of six months of dedicated resources working flat-out to analyse over 400 reports, and in terms of the cash we spend on this publication. Studio 5, our primary partner in this project, provided their expertise in report design to help us get this report to you: our valued clients, colleagues and peers.

NOTE

91

Organisation Au

tho

rsh

ip

Ass

ura

nce

Ad

viso

ry

Des

ign

/la

you

t

Dat

a sy

stem

s

Trai

nin

g

CD

P

serv

ices

Contact person Email address Gau

ten

g

Wes

tern

C

ape

KZ

N

Accenture X X X DrGrantHatch Grant.hatch@accenture.com X X

AgartisConsulting X X ThomasMcLachlan Thomas@agartis.co.za X

AlternativeProsperity X X X TrevorChandler trevor@chandlerconsulting.co.za X

AprioCommunications X X JulianGwillim Julian@aprio.co.za X X

CamcoGlobal X X SanthuriNaicker Santhuri.naicker@camcoglobal.com X

CarbonCalculated X X X X AlexHetherington alex@carboncalculated.co.za X

Clova X MikeRose roses@worldonline.co.za X

EditingInk X X DeirdreduToit ddutoit@iafrica.com X

Deloitte X X X NinaleRiche nleriche@deloitte.co.za X X

EnvironmentalResourcesManagement(ERM) X X X X SimonClarke Simon.Clarke@erm.com X X X

EY–ClimateChange&Sustainability X X JeremyGrist jeremy.grist@za.ey.com X

FleishmanHillard X X LaniBotha lani.botha@fleishman.co.za X

GreenGrassDesigns X RiaKraftt Ria@greengrassdesign.co.za X

Greymatter&Finch X X X X AdrianadeRoock adriana@greymatterfinch.com X X

HGStrategicCommunications X X HeidiGeldenhuys h.geldenhuys@iafrica.com X

Icologie X X X X AndyleMay Andy.le.may@icologie.com X

Ince.Motiv X X X LindaBuchler LindaB@ince.co.za X X X

KeyterRechInvestorSolutions X X VanessaRech vrech@kris.co.za X

KPMG–SustainabilityServices X X X ShireenNaidoo shireen.naidoo@kpmg.co.za X

PageBreakCommunicators X X CliveLotter clive.lotter@gmail.com X

PromethiumCarbon X X X X X HarmkeImmink harmke@promethium.co.za X

PwC–SustainabilitySolutions X X X X AlisonRamsden alison.ramsden@za.pwc.com X X X

Route2Sustainability X X TimBarker timb@route2sustainability.com X

SoloGraphics X DebbieSnoek debbiesn@telkomsa.net X

SRKConsulting X X X DonGibson dgibson@srk.co.za X

TWC X AntoinetteThamm antoinette@twc.co.za X

WSPEnvironment&Energy X X X X X HelenHulett helen.hulett@wspgroup.co.za X X X

IndependentSRPs: X X BrianKeeling keelingb@mweb.co.za X X

X X DanSonnenberg dansonnenberg@gmail.com X

X X X X Dr.VenPillay venpill@iafrica.com X

X X JeremyWakeford Jeremy@ideas21.co.za X

X X KarienGerber gerbek@unisa.ac.za X

X X RobZipplies robzipplies@gmail.com X

| appendix V: Useful contacts and Links continued

92

Moving ForwardDear Reader,

For the fourth consecutive year, the better part of the past six months has been dedicated to compiling what I believe has become required reading for anyone producing a sustainability report, or advising companies in that pursuit. The process has been neither cheap nor easy, but it has been an education for all of us involved, and impossible to complete if not for the support offered by our team and project partners.

No fewer than 2 000 hours were invested into this project by Lauren, Julia, Matt, Tahereh, Thembi and myself. Additional countless hours were invested by Mandy and her team at Studio 5, our dedicated design partners, Jason and his colleagues at Ultra Litho Printers, and Juanique and Anna at Global Carbon Exchange (GCX).

It is our collective hope that this report will be a useful resource in your reporting journey, and that you will offer feedback if you have identified any errors, omissions, or improvement opportunities for future lapses in judgement regarding how best to spend our “free time”. We also hope that this report will attract project opportunities to our team: IRAS for advisory, authorship and/or assurance services; GCX for carbon footprint and/or CDP services; Studio 5 for report design services; and Ultra Litho for printing and binding services. Ultimately, our ability to continue to provide this report as a free service to our clients, colleagues and peers is dependent upon our own ability to attract customers, and we hope that potential clients will understand the value of what each of us learns through our investment in this project.

It’s important to note that this project serves as training and development for all of us, but particularly the researchers (Lauren, Julia, Matt and Tahereh). Although the pay sucks, the knowledge gained through the experience is invaluable and sets these researchers streaks ahead of almost anyone else attempting to support companies in their reporting quest.

As we put final pen to paper on this report, it is my hope that the following will result from this project:

• Companies will know to contact us if they need authorship, assurance and/or advisory services.

• Future sustainability report authors, advisors and/or assurance providers will know to contact us for training and development, particularly our twice-annual Certified Sustainability Assurance Provider (CSAP) courses.

• Recent university grads – preferably at the Master’s level from English-speaking countries outside South Africa – will know to contact us if they wish to participate in next year’s research project.

• The folks at the GRI and AccountAbility will use this report to help raise awareness of the benefits of GRI-based reporting and assurance throughout their global sphere of influence.

Ultimately, our goal is to be the #1 Sustainability Assurance Provider in South Africa, seeking not to be the least expensive assurance provider, but the most cost effective, efficient and value-adding assurer to more companies than any of our peers. In doing so, we hope to be able to assist a maximum number of companies improve their integrated sustainability reporting processes and outcomes, while continuing to support our charitable efforts: particularly the Soweto Marimba Youth League (SMYLe) and the Orlando Children’s Home.

Ours is a company that is still relatively new (in our 4th year), small (a team of four full-timers and a network of associated professionals), and committed to serving our clients with a value proposition based on our motto:

Them that can’t do, teach. Only them that can… and DO… should consult!

We produce our own sustainability report (albeit very late this time around); we contribute to socioeconomic development in under-privileged communities; we offer guidance to others seeking to join the sustainability reporting and assurance space; we teach what we can, when we can; and, we offer pro bono services to worthy clients. In short, we do our best to lead by example, and we hope that you will contact us if there’s any way that we can be of service.

We look forward to interacting with you again next year, if not sooner.

Sincerely,

Michael H. Rea

michael@iras.co.za / www.iras.co.za / www.smyle.co.za

KING

III & G

RI +13

Every enterprise has a story to tell. A story of how they create and preserve value, and how they intend to keep doing so. The story of value is the story of our times.

We help blue-chip companies, entrepreneurial businesses and visionary individuals tell their stories to the people who keep them in business. We are known for our critical thinking, creativity and craftsmanship in producing work that is distinctive from concept to completion.

Credible and compelling communication engages the minds and opens the hearts of even the most sceptical stakeholders. For the value of story is timeless.

+27 [0]11 268 3900 | INFO@STUDIO5.CO.ZA | STUDIO5.CO.ZA

TELLING VALUE

The story of value,the value of story.