Powerpoint slides

Report
6th Annual Research Report Launch Event
Johannesburg Stock Exchange
25 September 2014
Michael H. Rea
Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services
[email protected] / 082 788 3966
Who is Michael H Rea?
Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services…or ‘IRAS’
• Team of 3 full timers, interns and a network of ‘associated practitioners’
• Backed by 15 years’ experience in sustainability reporting and assurance in in 17 countries
• Providers of integrated report authorship, assurance, training and advisory services
• Current roster of clients = 8; past clients = 35, most of whom are multiple year repeats
• South Africa’s leading assurance provider…in terms of ‘the value proposition’
Today’s game plan…
This is to be an ‘informal discussion’ designed to share what IRAS has learned as –
•
•
A provider of Independent Third Party Assurance (ITPA) over the Environmental, Social and
Governance (ESG) data contained within Integrated Annual Reports (or stand-alone
Sustainability Reports)
The only company that has reviewed the sustainability/ESG reporting of every JSE-listed
company for the past six years (starting with our 2009 research report)
However, we also expect input from you…representing the following:
•
•
•
•
JSE-listed companies
Consultancies/’Other Reporting Practitioners’
Media
Other interested and affected parties
The following slides are designed to be a conversation guide…but questions and/or arguments
are encouraged…and can be raised at any time!
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Why produce an IAR?
•
Global stakeholder expectations continue to evolve with respect to corporate disclosures
•
The near-global collapse of the financial sector in 2008 – on the back of the sub-prime
lending scandals of the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – has decreased the level of
trust in existing governance controls.
•
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (an oil rig working for BP)
•
Other global disasters include…
 17 major mine tailings dam collapses in the past 10 years, in Canada, the US, Hungary,
Peru, etc.
 Cancellation of Barrick Gold’s Pasca Lama gold mine in Chile…at a cost of $5.4
billion over 10 years due to community protests
 Suspension of Newmont Mining’s Conga Copper project in Peru due to water
contamination in mountain lakes
•
Growing shareholder activism…seeking increasing transparency of Environmental, Social
and Governance (ESG) issues
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Why produce an IAR?
The current global participation in SRI accounts for $30 Trillion in assets under professional
management…or 20% of the global capital markets, according to the 2012 Global Sustainable
Investment Review produced by the Global Sustainable Alliance
Data from the US Sustainable Investment Forum (SIF):
•
Alternative investment vehicles (private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, property funds)
account for $132B identified in 301 investment vehicles
•
Alternative Investment Funds investing in Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG)
strategies has experienced as much as 250% growth in assets since 2010.
•
CII's (Community Investment Institutions) account for $61.4B between 1 043 institutions
•
Institutional investors and high-net worth individuals pooled account for $234.2B within 45
products
•
Institutional Investors dominate the sector with $2.7 Trillion in Assets involved in ESG
incorporation
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Why produce an IAR?
The trend drivers for this growth include:
•
Client demands and values – whereby people want to know they are investing “responsibly”
•
Consumer demand and campaigns
•
Emergence of specialized stock exchanges with requirement for sustainability data
disclosure…including the “Sovereign Wealth Funds”
•
Firms that have not historically identified themselves as SRI are adopting SRI strategies in
decision-making; no ‘typical’ type of firm anymore; paradigm shift
•
Governance criteria incorporation as leading ESG issue…including the JSE’s SRI Index, the
UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI), the Code for Responsible Investment in
South Africa (CRISA), and Regulation 28 of the Pension Fund Act
•
Increased investment tied to impact – or ‘mission’ = where investors are tying investment to
environmental and/or social challenge reduction
•
The need for comparable standards of reporting = fundamental shift in corporate reporting
structure, including the SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board), shift to
‘integrated’ reporting in South Africa, the US and elsewhere.
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Why produce an IAR?
Environmental factors are among the most frequently incorporated criteria among
money managers (551 funds with $240B in assets).
Increased prominence of environmental issues (mainly climate change and carbon
emissions) is a driver in the 23% increase in institutional asset owners in the U.S.
who consider ESG.
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
OUR RESEARCH
Research Scope & Objectives
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Scope, Objectives & Approach
Purpose is to measure the ‘transparency’ of JSE-listed companies…with respect to
the ESG (or ‘Sustainability’) disclosure within public documentation, such as:
 Integrated Annual Reports
 Stand-alone Sustainability Reports
 Online supplemental ESG information
Unlike ALL other research in SA, the IRAS research report covers ALL of the JSE-listed
companies – excluding those yet to report…those that have de-listed since 01
January…and/or those that have been deemed ‘un-S’African’ (e.g., where the primary
domicilium is outside SA and/or where reporting is completed outside SA)
In 2014, the final research population was 311 companies (down from 331 in 2013…but we
now exclude NGOs and SMMEs from our population sample).
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Scope, Objectives & Approach
Our analysis includes 122 ESG indicators, including:
 7 Standard Disclosures…such as whether or not reports are assured and/or
whether additional reports are generated (e.g., CDP submission)
 12 scored Labour indicators
 12 scored Economic indicators
 10 scored Corporate Social Investment (CSI)/Socioeconomic Development
(SED) indicators
 10 scored Environmental indicators
 11 scored Health & Safety indicators
 12 scored Governance indicators
 48 non-scored calculated ratios…used to provide truly comparable measures of
performance (e.g., Carbon Emissions per Person Hour Worked)
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Scope, Objectives & Approach
Scoring is based on a 2-1-0 system…where:
‘OK’ = 2 points = A response where data was easily located and ‘made sense’
‘OI’ =
1 point =
‘Opportunity for Improvement’ = A response where data was
found, but was either difficult to locate, required some level
of interrogation and/or interpretation, or significant effort in
order to find, or was obviously incorrect.
‘NC’ = 0 points = ‘Not Covered’ = Where no data for the indicator could be
found.
‘SDTI Compliance Score’ = (Sum of all indicator-specific scores) / (74 * 2)
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Scope, Objectives & Approach
Our base research is conducted by a team of interns…mostly from Canada…with
the following Quality Control procedures in place:
1. As You Go Review…where each indicator response is compared by the reviewer against
our database of historical data for the company under review, and against sector averages,
to identify any possible anomalies that ought to be double-checked
2. Internal Peer Review…where each SDTI Gap Analysis is reviewed by one of the other
researchers to ensure that no obvious errors have occurred (e.g., incomplete indicator
responses)
3. Internal Research Manager Review…where each SDTI Gap Analysis is reviewed by
Jordan, to ensure that there are no obvious errors in the data extracted from company
reports (e.g., incorrect units of measure,
4. External Company Review…where each SDTI Gap Analysis is sent to the reporting
entity for their own review and/or confirmation that IRAS has not missed data and/or
captured incorrect data.
NOTE: Only 50 of the 311 companies under review provided feedback on our analysis.
Some of the best feedback came from Russell & Associates – for the 2nd straight
year – on behalf of their clients.
Scope, Objectives & Approach
Once the base research is complete – following the closure of our feedback period –
all data is collated into a comprehensive spreadsheet and analysed for trends and
anomalies.
All significant anomalies are interrogated internally and/or externally to at least
attempt to avoid uncomfortable errors in what IRAS reports in our annual research
publication.
The research report – available only in soft copy, until the week of the 29th of
September – is then compiled to provide a comprehensive review of our findings
relative to each of the 311 companies…for each of 122 SDTI indicators.
In almost all cases – unlike in prior years – data is presented according to the 23
JSE-specific sector designations…so as to avoid anyone continuing to accuse
IRAS of comparing banks for mining companies.
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Research Scope & Objectives
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Let’s begin with an award…
With a score of 82.43%...they are not only the Top Performer Overall…but the ‘Most Improved
Overall’…increasing their SDTI Score from 22.03% last year.
When I asked if IRAS had somehow screwed up in our evaluation of their reporting in 2013,
their response was…
“No. You were right. What happened was that when we received your report in the
mail, we saw how poorly we were ranked (231st out of 331 companies) and we were
upset. We then looked at how you scored us, and we realised that most of the data
we didn’t include in our previous report was information that we actually had. The
problem was that we weren’t disclosing it. So this year we used your assessment as
a starting point and made sure that we included all of the data that we previously –
and inexplicably – excluded. We also reviewed the rest of the data points and have
begun to put the systems and controls in place to be able to report on everything
else.”
Let’s begin with an award…
With a score of 82.43%...they are not only the Top Performer Overall…but the ‘Most Improved
Overall’…increasing their SDTI Score from 22.03% last year.
When I asked if IRAS had somehow screwed up in our evaluation of their reporting in 2013,
their response was…
“No. You were right. What happened was that when we received your report in the
mail, we saw how poorly we were ranked (231st out of 331 companies) and we were
upset. We then looked at how you scored us, and we realised that most of the data
we didn’t include in our previous report was information that we actually had. The
problem was that we weren’t disclosing it. So this year we used your assessment as
a starting point and made sure that we included all of the data that we previously –
and inexplicably – excluded. We also reviewed the rest of the data points and have
begun to put the systems and controls in place to be able to report on everything
else.”
THE WINNER IS…
Let’s begin with an award…
With a score of 82.43%...they are not only the Top Performer Overall…but the ‘Most Improved
Overall’…increasing their SDTI Score from 22.03% last year.
When I asked if IRAS had somehow screwed up in our evaluation of their reporting in 2013,
their response was…
“No. You were right. What happened was that when we received your report in the
mail, we saw how poorly we were ranked (231st out of 331 companies) and we were
upset. We then looked at how you scored us, and we realised that most of the data
we didn’t include in our previous report was information that we actually had. The
problem was that we weren’t disclosing it. So this year we used your assessment as
a starting point and made sure that we included all of the data that we previously –
and inexplicably – excluded. We also reviewed the rest of the data points and have
begun to put the systems and controls in place to be able to report on everything
else.”
THE WINNER IS…SANTOVA LOGISTICS!
The GRI’s downward spiral…
The GRI’s own database of GRI-based reports shows that uptake of the Guidelines has
plateaued – if not started to drop off – possibly as a result of their demonstrated need to
over-complicate what ought to be a simple process…and/or an inability to demonstrate an
effective value proposition for GRI-based reporting.
2 336 reports in 2011…2 584 in 2012…2 581 in 2013
Inclusion of “GRI-referenced” and “Non-GRI” reports suggests ‘desperation setting in.
The GRI’s downward spiral…
South Africa has slipped to 5th place in the Top 10
GRI-based reporting countries (for 2013 reports),
from 3rd in 2012 (134) and 2011 (128),
IRAS continues to criticise the G4 version of the
Guidelines because they will reduce the overall
comparability of reports through reporters’ ability
to select from the list of “Material Aspects” and
the underlying indicators.
We predict a continued slide in GRI uptake.
The GRI’s downward spiral…
Problems with the GRI Guidelines…
While the Standard Disclosures continue to be a useful set of indicators – helping companies
ensure that key information about the company is included in reports
46 Material Aspects and 150 indicators is simply ‘too many’ for most companies to worry about
in their reports, and thus most will opt for the ‘Core’ – rather than ‘Comprehensive’ – application
level.
The ability to select from the list of Material Aspects (for the Core application level) will
effectively eliminate any possibility for comparability between companies…even within sectors
– such as Metals & Mining – where reporting has matured with the GRI Guidelines over the past
15 years.
The lack of clear guidance on what ought to be included in a response to an indicator – as well as
the limited requirement for quantitative data disclosure – allows companies to produce GRIbased reports that are little more than tick-box success stories predicated on an ability to write
hollow assertions that sound good.
This – and the JSE’s failure to assess companies beyond a similar set of qualitative indicators – is
one of the primary reasons why IRAS scores companies based on “Data Transparency”!
Our Research Findings
Average sector-specific SDTI scores range from…to…
Three highest: 54.81%
53.19%
52.20%
Banking & Financial Services
Energy & Natural Resources
Government & Parastatals
Three lowest:
Financial Services
Media & Communications
Household & Leisure Goods
33.54%
31.38%
28.72%
* Note the difference between the ‘Banking & Financial Services’ and ‘Financial
Services’ sectors…where the customer-centric business appears to be much more
au fait with the need for greater ESG transparency.
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Distribution of SDTI Scores
Unlike in 2013 – with a highest score of 75.13% – 5 companies scored above 80%.
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Distribution of SDTI Scores
Economic and Governance indicators score best, while Health & Safety, CSI and
environmental indicators score worst.
Distribution of SDTI Scores
The JSE Top 60 and Top 100 – by market cap –
score fairly equally (52.86% and 53.11%,
respectively), which is significantly higher than
the overall JSE average of 42.0% (up from
33.7% in 2013)
Companies obtaining ITPA score significantly
higher (63.1%) than those not seeking assurance
(53.6%...the average for those companies scoring
above the median of 41.9%)…suggesting that
companies that seek assurance tend to pay much
more attention to comparable quantitative data
within their reports…most possibly because they
are ‘mature reporters’ that have moved up to
seeking assurance.
Research Scope & Objectives
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Interesting Findings – Labour
Interesting Findings – Labour
Very few companies provide Person Hours Worked (PHW) data…demonstrating a lack of
understanding of the need to ‘normalise data’ to efficiencies.
Question: What’s the easiest way to reduce your Total Electricity Consumption?
Answer:
Shut the lights off and go home!
Question: Assuming you want to stay in business, how should you measure electricity
consumption improvement?
Answer:
Reduce the volume of electricity consumed per PHW!
Question: Why ‘per PHW’?
Answer:
Because it is highly unlikely that any two companies will produce exactly the same
item – unless they’re based in Russian cooperatives – and therefore the only truly
effective denominator for comparable efficiency is PHW.
Per ‘units of production’ or ‘m2 of space’ is only useful for internal time-series
comparability, and therefore should not be used for external reporting.
NOTE:
It is ‘reasonably assumed’ that ALL outputs can be traced back to the productive
efficiency of a workforce, where PHW is a primary measurement indicator.
Interesting Findings – Labour
•
42 companies don’t even provide their ‘Number of Employees”…down from 61 last year.
•
10 companies reported ‘Zero Employment’…mostly retail and/or income funds
•
Only 155 companies provided adequate contractor employment data…up from 115 last year.
•
82.3% of all employees are deemed ‘Permanent’
•
Only 194 companies (62.4%) provided adequate HDSA employment data…up from 54.1%
last year.
•
Only 196 companies (63.0%) provided adequate Female employment data…up from 53.5%
last year.
•
Only 128 companies (41.2%) provided adequate Unionisation data…up from 32.0% last year
•
Only 126 companies (40.5%) provided adequate Unionisation data…up massively from only
8.2% last year
•
Only 124 companies (39.9%) provided Employee Training data…up from only 36.6% last
year…demonstrating almost no improvement in training data disclosure
Interesting Findings – Labour
15 companies reported training more people than they actually employ…suggesting a problem
with data comparability and/or the assumption that ‘sense’ is ‘common’ when it comes to
reporting.
Spur reported training 7 220 employees…even though they only employ 279 people…which
equates to them having trained 2 587.8% of their workforce.
• Clearly, they were talking about the number of franchisee employees trained (or franchisee
training interventions)…which is very different than ‘Employees Trained’
One of the most common reporting errors with respect to training is the confusing of “the
number of persons trained” and “the number of training interventions”.
If /when an employee is as thick as two planks, their need for repeat training ought not result in
the company counting them twice…or as many as 23 times (in one case identified through an
assurance engagement).
Interesting Findings – Labour
Only 75 companies reported the number of days lost due to strike action…with 47 of those
companies reporting ‘Zero Lost Days’.
One of the most common reporting errors with respect to lost days is the confusing of “the
number of calendar days lost” and “the person days lost”…the latter being the more effective
measure of ‘production loss risk due to labour unrest’.
Where strikes occur, the correct way to report would be to indicate the number of persons
affected (i.e., striking workers + employees unable to perform their duties due to strike action)
multiplied by the number of calendar days affected.
Of the 701 642 days lost due to strikes, 76.4% of all lost days were within the Metals & Mining
sector…which does not include Lonmin and/or Anglo Platinum’s losses in the 5-month platinum
strike…as they are still to report on their affected periods.
Question: Why is it that while Anglo Platinum, Lonmin and Implats suffered for 5 months, NO
days were lost at Royal Bafokeng Platinum…just down the road from the other three
companies’ operations?
Labour Graphs (an example)
Interesting Findings – Economic
Interesting Findings – Economic
•
Average Economic Data Transparency Score decreased from 72.7% last year to 68.3% this
year…remaining second highest across the six sections…2nd only to Governance (78.3%)
•
Anglo American plc and Sasol reported the highest Total Revenue – R283 and R181 billion,
respectively – but neither was in the Top 20 in terms of Revenue per Employee, suggesting
that both suffer from inefficient workforce issues
•
Setting aside Rand Merchant Bank – due to it’s nature as a holding company that essentially
double reports the performance of it’s subsidiary companies – Kumba Iron Ore was the only
company that was within the Top 20 for Net Proftit After Tax (NPAT) and NPAT per
employee…suggesting the presence of an efficient workforce and/or higher levels of cost
effective mechanisation in an industry plagued by workforce inefficiencies
•
Our calculation of Income Disparity in 2013 was – by far – the most contentious of all issues
raised in our 2013 research report…and, as a result, led to three new disparity ratios:
•
•
•
•
Income Disparity inclusive of Gains on Shares (i.e., last year’s ratio)
Income Disparity exclusive of Gains on Shares (New!)
Income Disparity inclusive of remuneration paid to Prescribed Officers…including
Gains on Shares (New!)
Income Disparity inclusive of remuneration paid to Prescribed Officers…excluding
Gains on Shares (New!)
Income Disparity Ratios
Income Disparity Ratios
Income Disparity Ratios
Income Disparity - Question
Which company would you expect to have a higher Income Disparity Ratio…
Shoprite or Woolworths?
Why?
Income Disparity Ratios
Income Disparity Ratios – Problem
Some of these nine companies have
no reason not to report properly, as
their IDR was below their sector
average. However, the likes of the
following may be a concern, as their
2013 IDRs were above their sector
averages:
Tongaat Hulett
58.2 vs 53.2
Ecsponent (JDH)
33.2 vs 14.9
Netcare
25.5 vs 23.6
R&D Spend
Employee Wages to Dividends
Economic Graphs (an example)
Interesting Findings – CSI/SED
Interesting Findings – CSI/SED
•
42 companies don’t even provide their ‘Number of Employees”…down from 61 last year.
•
10 companies reported ‘Zero Employment’…mostly retail and/or income funds
•
Only 155 companies provided adequate contractor employment data…up from 115 last year.
•
82.3% of all employees are deemed ‘Permanent’
•
Only 194 companies (62.4%) provided adequate HDSA employment data…up from 54.1%
last year.
•
Only 196 companies (63.0%) provided adequate Female employment data…up from 53.5%
last year.
•
Only 128 companies (41.2%) provided adequate Unionisation data…up from 32.0% last year
•
Only 126 companies (40.5%) provided adequate Unionisation data…up massively from only
8.2% last year
•
Only 124 companies (39.9%) provided Employee Training data…up from only 36.6% last
year…demonstrating almost no improvement in training data disclosure
Interesting Findings – CSI/SED
CSI/SED Spend - Question
Why do you believe the Metals & Mining sector reports CSI/SED Spend of more than
R3.9 Billion…relative to a total JSE CSI/SED Spend of R8.5 Billion (or roughly
46.4% of all CSI/SED Spend)?
NOTE: Average NPAT for the Metals & Mining sector is 14.7%...whereas the
average across the JSE is 25.8%...and Metals & Mining is fifth, behind Real
Estate (108.1%), Financial Services (38.4%), Banking & Financial Services
(28.6%) and Software & Computers (21.7%).
Interesting Findings – CSI/SED
Interesting Findings – CSI/SED
• Over 25% of all CSI/SED Spend is not allocated to one or more of the Developmental Priority
areas…at least not in reports
• Education and Infrastructure Development are gaining the lion’s share of all allocated funding
Interesting Findings – CSI/SED
CSI/SED Graphs (an example)
CSI/SED Graphs (an example)
Interesting Findings – Environment
Interesting Findings – Environment
Interesting Findings – Environment
• In general, the quality of Environmental Data
Transparency is exceptionally low, with an average
score of 21.0%...the lowest of all six sections
• At 31.1%, Carbon Transparency is somewhat
higher than for the rest of the environmental
elements…particularly water consumption and
waste disposal
Environmental Graphs (an example)
Interesting Findings – H & S
Interesting Findings – H & S
Interesting Findings – H & S
NOTE: In the ‘beta version’ of the research report, p.118 is supposed to include this table…where
the two repeated (and insanely small) tables are currently positioned.
Interesting Findings – H & S
At 6.39 injuries per 200 000 PHW,
Sovereign Foods has the highest reported
Lost Time Injury Frequency
Rate…then…
Distell
3.01
Central Rand Gold
Sun International 2.05
Wesizwe Platinum
2.52
2.01
5 of the 20 companies with the highest
LTIFR are within the Food & Beverages
sector…compared to only 4 in the Metals
& Mining sector
Interesting Findings – H & S
IDC and Blue Label Telecoms…really?
Interesting Findings – Governance
Interesting Findings – Governance
Interesting Findings – Governance
Interesting Findings – Governance
IDC and Blue Label Telecoms…really?
Interesting Findings – New Indicator
Gov 14 Auditor Rotation Period / Length of Current Auditor’s Service
Did you know…
•
The largest US 100 companies have an average auditor rotation period of 28 years
•
The FTSE 100 average is 48 years
•
Barclays has had – in essence – the same auditors (PWC, or their forefathers) since 1896
•
Italy has had a mandatory rotation period of nine years since 1974
Research Scope & Objectives
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Interesting Findings – Assurance
At 48.67% of all GRI-based reports, South African companies are seeking assurance at a higher rate
than the average for the 2 851 GRI-based reporters in the GRI’s database (41.4% assurance
uptake).
South Korea (89.1%) and Sweden (60.2%) have the highest assurance uptake rates.
Interesting Findings – Assurance
For the first time in 4
years, KPMG has once
again regained top
spot as the assurance
provider with the
most clients…followed
by PWC and IRAS.
Deloitte, EY, ERM and
Gilden Assurance (a
new entrant) round
out the Top 8.
Interesting Findings – Governance
For the first time in 4 years,
KPMG has once again
regained top spot as the
assurance provider with the
most clients…followed by
PWC and IRAS.
Deloitte, EY, ERM and Gilden
Assurance (a new entrant)
round out the Top 8.
Research Scope & Objectives
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Our Personal Favourites
Research Scope & Objectives
Michael H. Rea, Partner, Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS)
[email protected]
Interesting Findings – Governance
Interesting Findings – Governance
ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
Our Personal Favourites
The rest of our award winners…
The rest of our award winners…
Banking & Financial Services
Chemicals
Construction, Materials & Equipment
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Energy & Natural Resources
Engineering & Support Services
Financial Services
Food & Beverages
General Industry
Government & Parastatals
Health
Household & Leisure Goods
Info, Communications & Telecoms
Insurance
Media & Communications
Metals & Mining
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
Real Estate
Retail
Services & Other
Software & Computers
Transportation
Travel, Hotels & Leisure
8
6
22
12
7
8
31
19
11
4
4
6
9
9
7
45
4
32
23
13
14
8
9
Nedbank
African Oxygen (Afrox)
Group Five
Reunert
Sasol
Howden Africa
Sekunjalo Investments
Illovo Sugar
Metair
IDC
Netcare
Beige Holdings
Telkom
Sanlam
Kagiso Media
Anglo American Platinum
Aspen Pharmacare
Sycom Fund
MassMart
AdCorp & Morvest (Tied)
Digicore
Santova
Sun International
69.59%
69.59%
67.57%
71.62%
80.41%
68.92%
70.27%
77.03%
80.41%
58.11%
52.70%
43.92%
64.19%
55.41%
43.92%
81.08%
67.57%
68.24%
68.24%
54.73%
41.89%
82.43%
68.92%
17th
17th
24th
14th
3rd
19th
16th
7th
3rd
60th
83rd
129th
32nd
69th
129th
2nd
24th
22nd
22nd
77th
137th
1st
19th
Parting Notes…
The hard copies of the research report will be ready next week…and will be delivered by IRAS as
soon as possible…inclusive of our sincere apologies!
We have provided each company with soft copies of the following:
•
The ‘beta version’ research report…inclusive of some previously edited errors that need to be
re-edited…including p.118 (the LTIFR graph)
•
Each company’s 2015 SDTI Gap Analysis Template…inclusive of our new indicators…and
the 3 years of historical data we’ve already collated within our SDTI Toolkit
•
A soft copy of the sample SDTI Analytics Report…for you to consider recruiting us to
conduct for your company.
For those wanting access to our SDTI Toolkit, the programme is on display in the foyer, and Mark
Becking is on-hand to explain the functionality during the Cocktails & Canapés session.
Our 2015 Research Report will be launched on the 29th of July 2015…if anyone is interested in
becoming our new design partner, please feel free to contact me ASAP…as our 2015 process
will begin on the 6th of October…with interviews in Canada for 4 new interns…and our analysis
will begin on the 1st of November (latest).
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY’S LAUNCH EVENT!!!

similar documents