South32
What do our scores mean?
The organizational score represents the degree to which the organization influencing climate policy and legislation. Corporations also have relationship scores reflecting their links with influencers like trade associations. Both are combined to place the corporation in a performance band. Full details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). Clearly energy companies are more affected by climate regulations and will have a higher EI than, for example retailers. So an organization’s score should be looked at in conjunction with this metric to gauge the amount of evidence we are using in each case as a basis for scoring. On our scale, an EI of more than 35 indicates a relatively large amount of climate policy engagement.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
Updated terminology, February 2021
We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
- Details of Relationship Score
-
What is the Relationship Score
A corporation, as well as its organizational score will have a relationship score. It is computed by aggregating the organizational scores of the Influencers (trade bodies etc.) it has relationships with, weighted by both the strength of these relationships and the relative importance of the Influencers towards climate change policy. Full details can be found here.
|
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
1
|
NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
|
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
Is the organization supporting the science-based response to climate change as set out by the IPCC? (the IPCC) |
1
|
NS | NA | NS |
1
|
1
|
NS | NA |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
0
|
NS | NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NA |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
1
|
2
|
NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
-2
|
NA |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NS |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
0
|
NS |
0
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
Is the organization supporting an IPCC-aligned transition of the economy away from carbon-emitting technologies, including supporting relevant policy and legislative measures to enable this transition? |
-1
|
-2
|
NS | NS |
0
|
0
|
NS | NA |
|
GHG Emission Regulation
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Standards, targets, and other regulatory measures directly targeting Greenhouse Gas emissions |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
0
|
NS | NA |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
Is the organization transparent about its involvement with industry associations that are influencing climate policy, including the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate? |
1
|
NS |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NS |
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
President of South 32 Africa in on the board of MCSA
Mike Fraser
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of South 32 is on the council of CM
Micheal Fraser
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
President of South 32 Africa in on the board of MCSA
Mike Fraser
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of South 32 is on the council of CM
Micheal Fraser
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
In its Sustainable Development Report (2020), South32 points out a potential misalignment with QRC because the Council does not directly reference support for the Paris Agreement.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive at South 32 Cannington is a director on the board
Rob Jackson
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
South32 is a member of QRC
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
In its Sustainable Development Report (2020), South32 points out a potential misalignment with QRC because the Council does not directly reference support for the Paris Agreement.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive at South 32 Cannington is a director on the board
Rob Jackson
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
South32 is a member of QRC
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
not specified
How to Read our Relationship Score Map
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
Climate Lobbying Overview: South32 does not appear to be actively lobbying on climate policy. The company’s engagement is largely limited to top-line statements on climate action and the energy transition, which are broadly supportive although evidence suggests that the company continues to support a sustained role for coal in the energy mix.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: South32 appears to support the global goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. In its 2020 Sustainable Development Report, South32 also stated its support for both the Paris Agreement and national bipartisan policy, although the company appears to favor market-based and technology-neutral forms of climate regulation. In May 2019, South32 CEO Graham Kerr also called for “productive and stable” climate policy in Australia.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: There is limited evidence of South32’s engagement with climate change regulation. The company does not disclose its position on or engagement with specific climate policy in its corporate reporting, and it has not disclosed to CDP since 2018. The company’s 2018 CDP response states that it supports the South African Government’s carbon tax with minor exceptions, although it does not disclose further details and the company has not submitted a response to CDP since 2018. In February 2020, South32’s CEO Graham Kerr sought clarification on the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions in New South Wales planning regulations, but did not take a clear position.
Positioning on Energy Transition: South32’s top-line messaging indicates support for the energy transition, with CEO Graham Kerr stating that the company “supports the global shift towards a low carbon economy” in its 2019 Climate Change report. However, evidence suggests that South32 continues to support a sustained role for coal in the energy mix. In December 2020, the company lobbied the Independent Planning Commission to extend one of its existing coal mines until 2048, emphasizing the economic and employment benefits for Australia.
Industry Association Governance: South32 discloses its industry association memberships and has also published a review of the company’s alignment with their positions on climate change. South32 found no material misalignments with its industry associations. However, this assessment does not appear to capture the obstructive lobbying activities of several organizations of which it is a member including the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia and the NSW Minerals Council.