| |
| KPMG’s independent assurance report |
| |
| Independent assurance report to Sasol Limited (Sasol) on the Sasol
Sustainable Development Report 2006 |
|
|
|
| Introduction |
| We have performed our independent assurance engagement of the
Sasol Sustainable Development Report 2006 (the Report), for the
year ended 30th June 2006, with respect to the following aspects of
the Report: |
| • |
'Selected 2006 Sustainable Development (SD) performance
indicators', indicated below; and |
| • |
Whether the Report complies with the 'in accordance with'
requirements of the 2002 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (the 2002 GRI Guidelines). |
|
| |
| Our work has been undertaken so that we might state to Sasol those
matters we have been engaged to state in this report and for no
other purpose. Accordingly, this report is made in accordance with
the terms of our engagement. We do not accept or assume
responsibility to anyone other than Sasol, for our work, for this
report, or for the conclusions we have reached. |
| |
| Responsibilities of Directors |
| The Directors of Sasol are responsible for the preparation of the
Report and the information and assessments contained within it, in
accordance with the 2002 GRI Guidelines; for the identification of
material SD issues for inclusion in the Report; for determining the
group's objectives in respect of SD performance and development of
appropriate SD indicators; and for designing, implementing and
maintaining appropriate performance management and internal
control systems from which the reported information is derived. |
| |
| Responsibility of the independent assurance provider |
Our responsibility is to express our conclusions based on our
independent assurance engagement, performed in accordance with
the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE 3000)
Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical
Financial Information. This standard requires, inter-alia, that the
assurance provider complies with the appropriate requirements of
the IFAC Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants such that their
independence is not compromised and collectively they possesses
the specific knowledge, skills and professional competencies relative
to the engagement.
Our engagement was carried out by a multi-disciplinary team of
safety, health, environmental, stakeholder engagement and
assurance specialists who have experience in the chemical and oil and gas sectors. This team undertakes similar engagements with other
South African and international companies and is led by a director
who has 10 years of related experience in the chemical industry and 6
years of experience in sustainability reporting and assurance.
ISAE 3000 requires a reasonable assurance conclusion to be
expressed in the positive form and limited assurance conclusion in
the negative form |
| |
| Basis of our work and limitations |
The procedures selected depend on our judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the aspects of
the Report that were the subject of our engagement. In making these
assessments we have considered internal controls relevant to the
company's preparation and presentation of information in the
Report, in order to design procedures appropriate for gathering
sufficient appropriate evidence to determine that the aspects that
were the subject of our engagement are not materially misstated or
misleading. Our assessment of relevant internal controls is not,
however, for the purpose of expressing a conclusion on the
effectiveness of the company's internal controls.
The 'Basis of reporting' is set out in the 'Performance Data' section
of the Report (pages 79 − 82) and highlights key issues in relation to
limitations in the nature, timing and extent of the reported SD
performance information. It is important to understand the 'selected
2006 SD performance indicators' and related statements in the
Report, in the context of these limitations. The reliability of
SD performance indicators is subject to inherent limitations given
their nature and methods for determining, calculating or estimating
such data. No assurance is expressed in relation to the remaining
SD performance indicators not covered by our work performed.
Where a limited assurance conclusion is expressed, our evidence
gathering procedures are more limited than for a reasonable
assurance engagement, and therefore less assurance is obtained
than in a reasonable assurance engagement.
We believe that our work performed as set out below provides an
appropriate basis for our conclusions, expressed below, for the
aspects that were the subject of our assurance engagement. |
| |
| Selected 2006 SD Performance Indicators |
| |
| Subject matter and criteria |
| The SD performance indicators selected by us to be the subject of the assurance engagement were determined by considering Sasol's key SD risks, identifying those SD indicators considered relevant to management and stakeholder decision-making processes, and our experience of the risks associated with reporting SD performance and the systems and processes in place to mitigate those risks. These are collectively referred to as the 'selected 2006 SD performance indicators' and are included in the 'Performance Data' section of the Report. |
| |
| a) |
The 2006 SD performance indicators selected for purposes of
expressing reasonable assurance were: Employee and Service
Provider Fatalities; Total Energy Use, Direct Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
emissions and Indirect CO2 emissions; and |
| b) |
The 2006 SD performance indicators selected for purposes of
expressing limited assurance were: Employee Recordable Case
Rate (RCR); Fires, Explosions and Releases; Transportation
Incidents;Water Use; Hazardous Waste; HIV Prevalence Rate;
Number of Employees on Antiretroviral Treatment (ART),
Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT) Uptake and Rand Value
of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Procurement. |
|
| |
| The internally developed Sasol SD Reporting Guidance, based on the
2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines of the Global Reporting
Initiative, were used as the criteria for assessing the selected
SD performance indicators. The performance data tables on
page 79 − 82 gives further information on specific definitions. |
| |
| Work performed |
| Our work consisted of: |
| • |
Obtaining an understanding of the systems used to generate,
aggregate and report the selected 2006 SD performance
indicators based on Sasol's SD Reporting Guidance for the
selected 2006 SD performance indicators at seven sites selected
by us and at Head Office to assess the reliability of the selected
2006 SD performance indicators; |
| • |
Conducting interviews with management, at the sites visited in
the current and previous year and at Head Office, to obtain an
understanding of the consistency of the reporting processes
compared with prior years and to obtain explanations for SD
performance trends; |
| • |
Performing an analytical review of the selected 2006 SD
performance indicators aggregated at Head Office and obtaining
explanations for unusual trends; |
| • |
Testing the accuracy of the aggregation process for the
consolidated selected 2006 SD performance indicators at Head
Office; and |
| • |
Reviewing and analysing the consistency between the selected
2006 SD performance indicators and related statements in the
Report, in light of our findings at the sites visited and at Head
Office and our analytical review. |
|
| |
| Conclusion |
| |
| • |
In our opinion, the selected 2006 SD performance indicators set
out in (a) above for the year ended 30 June 2006, are fairly stated in all material respects on the basis of the Sasol SD Reporting
Guidance; and |
| • |
Based on the work described above, we have no reason to believe
that the selected 2006 SD performance indicators set out in (b)
above for the year ended 30 June 2006, are not fairly stated in all
material respects on the basis of the Sasol SD Reporting Guidance. |
|
| |
| Compliance with the 2002 GRI Guidelines |
| |
| Subject matter and criteria |
| Our limited assurance engagement was to determine whether the
Report complies with the 'in accordance with' requirements of the
2002 GRI Guidelines |
| |
| Work performed |
| Our work consisted of: |
| • |
Reviewing the processes that Sasol has in place for determining
material issues to be included in the Report; |
| • |
Reviewing the processes in place for stakeholder engagement and
the response to stakeholder issues identified in the Report; |
| • |
Interviewing a selection of Sasol staff to ensure that the response
to the principles in Part B, provided in the `Application of the
GRI Principles' (page 89) is consistent with the response from
Sasol staff; |
| • |
Comparing the contents of the Report to the 2002 GRI
Guidelines, to assess whether the Report meets the requirements
for stating that it is 'in accordance with' the 2002 GRI Guidelines
and performing procedures to enable us to determine whether: |
| • |
Sasol appropriately reports on the 44 numbered elements in
Sections 1 to 3 of Part C of the 2002 GRI Guidelines; |
| • |
The Report includes a GRI Content Index; |
| • |
A response has been given to each core indicator in Section 5 of
Part C of the 2002 GRI Guidelines; |
| • |
The company's response to each of the principles in Part B of the
2002 GRI Guidelines, as set out in the `Application of the GRI
Principles' (Page 89) is not materially misstated; and |
| • |
The Report includes a GRI 'in accordance with' statement signed
by the Chief Executive. |
|
| |
| Conclusion |
| Based on the work described above, we have no reason to believe
that Sasol has not complied with the 'in accordance with'
requirements of the 2002 GRI Guidelines in the Report. |
| |
| Opportunities for improvement |
| Opportunities for improvement identified at the sites visited and
Head Office are indicated below. These opportunities do not affect
our conclusions above. |
| |
| • |
As indicated in the 'Responding to the Stakeholder Feedback'
section on page 53, there is a need for an ongoing process of
stakeholder engagement and for Sasol to better integrate the
outputs of stakeholder engagement into core business processes
such as strategy and policy development, investment actions and
appraisals. |
| • |
As indicated on page 4, Sasol has approved globally applicable
minimum Safety, Health and Environmental requirements for all
existing and new Sasol projects and all joint ventures (JV's) under
Sasol's operational control. To comply with the new 2006 GRI
Guidelines, which were launched in October this year, there is a
need for Sasol to demonstrate that it has an approach and
processes in place to responsibly influence the performance of
JV's in which Sasol does not have management control but has
significant influence. As Sasol expands its business overseas
through the JV model, reporting on significant non-operated
JV's will become more relevant. |
|
| |
 |
| KPMG Services (Pty) Limited |
 |
Per PD Naidoo
Director
Johannesburg
15 November 2006 |
| |
| Top of page |
