|
|
| |
| Our environmental performance |
| |
| |
|
|
| Benchmarking our climate change governance practices |
| |
To assist in assessing our approach to managing climate change in
Sasol, we have benchmarked our performance on climate change
governance against the outcomes of a recent independent global
review of the climate response programmes of 100 of the world's
largest corporations. Published in March 2006 by CERES, a US
coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest
organisations, the report presents the findings of a detailed study
undertaken by the Investor Responsibility Research Centre (IRRC).
The report (Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the
Connection) evaluates the climate change governance practices of
76 US and 24 non-US global companies, with a particular focus on
the activities of corporate executives and the board in driving
systems to identify and respond to the risks and opportunities
presented by global climate change.
The companies' practices are assessed and scored against the criteria
of a climate change governance checklist that reviews how
companies are addressing climate change in terms of five
governance categories: board oversight, management performance,
public disclosure, emissions accounting and strategic planning. The
checklist consists of 14 governance steps that companies can take to
proactively address climate change. Each of the five governance categories has a different number of maximum points to reflect the
number of actions available and their relative importance to the
overall score.
The report is designed to be used as a benchmarking tool by
institutional investors and corporations who appreciate the potential
significance of the physical and policy impacts of climate change.
As Sasol was not assessed by the IRRC as part of this review, we
have undertaken our own preliminary qualitative self-assessment
against the criteria contained in their checklist (see table on
pages 68 − 69).
The aim of this self-assessment is to assist us − and our stakeholders
− to evaluate how we are doing relative to our industry peers and to
identify opportunities for further improvement. As the methodology
used by the IRRC for scoring companies' performance is not
elaborated upon, we are not in a position to allocate a numeric score
for our performance. Nevertheless, we believe our response to each
of the 14 governance elements provides a sufficient basis for an
informed judgment of our climate change governance practices. The
IRRC's assessment of the reviewed companies in the oil and gas
sector is presented below. |
| |
Company
Maximum |
Board
12 |
Management
18 |
Disclosure
14 |
Emissions
24 |
Strategies
32 |
Total
100 |
| BP |
9 |
16 |
13 |
23 |
29 |
90 |
| Royal Dutch |
7 |
15 |
7 |
23 |
27 |
79 |
| Statoil |
10 |
13 |
12 |
15 |
22 |
72 |
| Total |
6 |
15 |
12 |
13 |
16 |
62 |
| Chevron |
7 |
10 |
5 |
17 |
18 |
57 |
| Anadarko |
5 |
8 |
9 |
11 |
6 |
39 |
| Sunoco |
2 |
5 |
7 |
17 |
8 |
39 |
| Ameranda Hess |
4 |
6 |
5 |
12 |
8 |
35 |
| ConocoPhillips |
3 |
5 |
7 |
9 |
11 |
35 |
| ExxonMobil |
5 |
5 |
5 |
12 |
8 |
35 |
| Marathon |
3 |
4 |
3 |
10 |
6 |
26 |
| Occidental |
5 |
2 |
4 |
11 |
3 |
25 |
| Valero |
1 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
8 |
24 |
| Apache |
3 |
6 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
22 |
| Tesoro |
6 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
15 |
| Burlington |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
13 |
| Devon Energy |
0 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
11 |
| El Paso |
3 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
9 |
| Murphy Oil |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
| Williams |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
| Average |
4,15 |
6,1 |
4,85 |
10,3 |
9,5 |
34,8 |
|
| |
| Top of page |
|
