This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Sasol's disclosures on climate policy engagement. This does not include an assessment of the company's real-world climate policy engagement, which can be found on InfluenceMap's online profile of Sasol, accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
The disclosure assessments are directly integrated into the CA100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark as part of InfluenceMap's Climate Policy Engagement Alignment’ assessment, under two distinct indicators:
In 2023, InfluenceMap’s methodology to assess corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement was formally updated in line with the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying and stakeholder input. The detailed methodology - as well as additional resources including best practice guidance and Sasol's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Sasol's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
| Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | No, does not meet criteria |
| Sub-Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | No, does not meet criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | No, does not meet criteria |
A summary of Sasol's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
The Review Score (0-100) assesses corporate performance against seven indicators, using the same traffic-light framework. A ‘Green’ scores 2 points, a ‘Yellow’ scores 1 point, and a ‘Red’ scores 0 points. This total is converted into a percentage from 0 to 100, calculated using the total number of points available (14). As such, only certain scores within the 0 to 100 range are possible under this methodology. A Review Score of 100 would indicate that a company has met all of the assessment criteria related to the review process.
| Date of Review | Score |
|---|---|
| August 2022 | 5/14 (36%) |
| August 2023 | 4/14 (29%) |
This is an assessment of the accuracy of a company's reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
InfluenceMap utilizes its proprietary database to assess how corporate disclosures on climate policy positions and engagement activities compare to InfluenceMap's independent assessment of the companies' and industry associations' real-world climate policy engagement. In short, it assesses the extent to which the company has disclosed on all climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of Sasol's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company published an accurate account of its corporate climate policy positions and engagement activities (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
Sasol has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but excludes 1 piece of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
In its 2023 Climate Advocacy Policy Supplement, Sasol disclosed both its positions on, and engagement with, key legislation including: the South African Carbon Tax; the South African Climate Change Bill; the South African Oil and Gas Draft Discussion Document; and European Union Delegated Acts. Sasol did not however disclose its engagement on the US Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as disclosed in a March 2023 US LDA.
A further point has been deducted as Sasol has not updated its disclosure for over a year.
Enel has published a complete and accurate account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, and this is aligned with InfluenceMap's assessment of the company using its LobbyMap database. Enel included its climate advocacy activities, positions, and links to the company’s government consultation responses to specific climate-related policies from 2022-2024 in its 2023 Climate Policy Advocacy report, published April 2024. It also covered a range of regions in its disclosure, including Global, Europe, North & South America, Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
BP partially met the assessment criteria under this indicator, as it excluded material evidence of climate policy engagement. However, BP’s ‘Advocacy Activities’ webpage provides a clear and detailed disclosure of the company’s climate policy engagement, with filters for jurisdiction; date; and topic, including links to relevant consultation responses. It also contains sorting options for most recent, and most relevant.
Has the company published an accurate account of the climate policy positions and engagement activities of the industry associations of which it is a member (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
Sasol provided an out of date account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies on its 'Policy Advocacy Updates' webpage, which only includes engagements up to June 2022.
As such, Sasol has not provided an up-to-date account of its climate related activities and engagement activities. For example, in a June 2025 presentation to the South African Parliament and Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Sasol advocated for new exploration and investments into fossil gas that will lock in unabated fossil fuels in the South African energy mix.
The company previously published its advocacy activities in its 2023 Climate Advocacy report, however an updated report has not been published since. As such, the score has been further reduced by 1is disclosure is over 1 year out of date. As such, the score has been reduced by 1.
See Appendix A below for details of the company's industry association memberships.
Unilever has published a complete and accurate account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. In its March 2024 industry association review, the company attached LobbyMap profile links to each association’s assessment. Iberdrola published a largely complete and accurate of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies.
Iberdrola and its North American subsidiary Avangrid both disclosed the climate policy engagement activities of their industry associations in their respective industry association climate lobbying reviews.
This is an assessment of the quality and robustness of a company's processes to identify, report on, and address specific cases of misalignment between its climate policy engagement activities (direct and indirect) and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The Review Score is split into seven indicators, which fall within one of three categories:
Review Process: Does the company have clear and robust governance processes to regularly assess alignment against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and address potential cases of misalignment?
Review Assessment (Direct - Company): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its direct - i.e. corporate - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
Review Assessment (Indirect – Industry Associations): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its indirect – i.e. via industry associations - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
The table below provides an overview of Sasol's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key.
| Review Process | Review Assessment (Direct) | Review Assessment (Indirect) |
|---|---|---|
| Monitor & Review | Identify & Assess | Identify & Assess |
| Alignment Assessment Method | Act | Act |
| Framework for Misalignment |
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of Sasol's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company established an annual monitoring and review process to ensure that all of its direct and/or indirect climate policy engagement activities across all geographies are consistent with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels?
Sasol has disclosed four reviews on an annual basis from 2020 to 2023. However, in its 2023 review, the company states that, going forward, its reviews will be undertaken every three years.
Rio Tinto has published detailed assessments of its climate policy engagement on an annual basis from 2018 to 2024, with detailed updates on misaligned industry associations each year. The company has committed to continue reviewing its memberships on an annual basis. Alternatively, Shell publishes a detailed review of its climate policy engagement every two years, with a detailed update in the interim year.
Has the company disclosed a clear and detailed framework for assessing alignment, including: (1) the criteria it uses to assess whether its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) align with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels; and (2) a clear and detailed explanation behind each evaluation?
Sasol has disclosed a clear methodology for assessing the alignment of its own climate policy positions, and those of its industry associations. Sasol assessed alignment against its ‘Principles for Responsible Climate-Related Advocacy’, which included five criteria categories: support for climate science, support for the Paris Agreement, support for carbon pricing, development of low-carbon energy solutions, and transparency. The company also disclosed criteria to be considered “Aligned”, “Partially Aligned”, and “Not Aligned”.
Sasol also provided a clear and detailed explanation behind the evaluation of each of its own climate policy positions and each industry association, where it detailed the level of alignment against each criteria.
However, Sasol has assessed alignment against top-line policy positions rather than the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Unilever assessed its industry associations’ climate policy engagement against both its own climate policy positions, and against science-based policy, determined by “what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said is needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C”. Unilever states that this assessment does not mean associations should be expected to support every proposed climate law, but that when an association opposes a specific climate policy, it is incumbent on the association to engage constructively with policymakers to help find alternative, viable policy options that would be (at least) equally effective at reducing emissions.
The company also clearly disclosed the criteria for findings of alignment and misalignment with both its own policy positions and science-based policy, and measured the engagement intensity of each association. It also provided clear and detailed explanations behind each evaluation including their detailed policy positions and links to each industry association’s LobbyMap profile.
Has the company established a clear framework to address misalignments between its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, including the escalation strategies it will use and when it will use these escalation strategies?
Sasol has disclosed a framework to address potential cases of misalignment, with escalation strategies. The company states that if misalignment is identified with an industry association, the company would engage with the organization to influence its views, disassociate the company from the specific misaligned policy positions, and exit the industry association if necessary.
However, Sasol does not disclose clear deadlines for industry associations which do not amend misaligned practices.
Iberdrola has disclosed a clear and detailed framework to address potential misalignments, including escalation strategies and deadlines for industry associations that do not amend misaligned practices. Iberdrola's escalation strategy includes engagement with the industry association, sending a "notification of dissatisfaction", and formal notification that a termination of membership is being assessed. If the association does not provide a clear and credible action plan to address the misalignment within 12 months, Iberdrola will implement one or more of the following actions: make a clear public statement regarding the misalignment, request the industry association refrains from engaging on misaligned issues, and/or suspension or discontinuation of membership.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database (including all of its subsidiaries, business areas, and operational jurisdictions)?
Sasol has assessed the alignment of five of its own climate policy positions, including four in South Africa (Climate Change Bill; Carbon Tax; PCC Just Transition Framework; Upstream Oil and Gas Tax Regime Discussion Document) and one in the EU (European Union Delegated Acts).
Sasol did not identify any cases of misalignment with its own climate policy engagement. As such, the company has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
For example, in a September 2022 submission to the Standing Committee on Finance on the Carbon Tax, Sasol supported provisions that would weaken the overall climate ambition of the policy, including calling for a decrease in the tax rate increase from 2026-2030. Sasol also responded to an EU consultatio on the Delegated Act on Method for Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emission Savings for Certain Fuels in June 2022, wherein the company called for 'unavoidable' fossil CO2 emissions from renewable fuels cogenerated with fossil fuels to be considered as renewable fuels until 2040, increased from 2035. This would weaken the overall climate ambition of the policy.
See Sasol's company profile for more details of the company’s climate policy engagement.
Danone assessed 12 of its own climate policy positions and engagement activities across Europe, the US, and globally. It found all 12 to be aligned. According to InfluenceMap’s database, Danone does not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement during the reporting period. As a result, Danone has assessed its climate policy engagement activities in line with InfluenceMap’s findings. It is the only company to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator.
Sasol published a detailed review of its direct climate policy engagement in August 2023. Sasol assessed the alignment of five of its own climate policy positions, including four in South Africa (Climate Change Bill; Carbon Tax; PCC Just Transition Framework; Upstream Oil and Gas Tax Regime Discussion Document) and one in the EU (European Union Delegated Acts). However, Sasol did not identify any cases of misalignment with its own climate policy engagement. As such, the company has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database. The company has not updated its review in 2024.
As a result, no company has shown evidence of identifying cases of misalignment of its direct climate policy engagement and delivering on the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
Sasol has shown no evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Danone and Unilever are the only companies to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator by default. Both companies do not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement according to InfluenceMap’s database, and therefore have no cases of misalignment to act upon.
As a result, no company has actively shown evidence of acting to address cases of misalignment between its own direct climate policy engagement activities and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between the climate policy engagement activities of its actively engaged industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
Sasol has assessed 24 industry associations in its 2023 review. It did not include key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy within the scope of the review, such as the National Business Initiative.
The company finds 21 industry associations to be aligned, 3 to be partially aligned (American Cleaning Institute, Chemical and Allied Industries' Association, Offshore Petroleum Association of South Africa), and none to be misaligned.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least one membership to an industry associations with active climate policy engagement misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database), and seven industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
However, the company has not identified key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap’s database. See Appendix A for further details on the company’s industry associations.
Unilever assessed 27 industry associations in its review and identified all cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with its industry associations and the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap's database. Unilever has membership to 1 misaligned industry association (Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry), and 10 partially aligned associations.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between the climate policy engagement activities of its industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
Sasol appears to have shown some evidence of action to address cases of misalignment with its industry associations. Sasol stated in its 2022 review that it had previously exited the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, and that it had found both to be ‘not aligned’ with its assessment criteria.
In its 2023 review, where the company found “partial alignment” with industry associations on a specific policy area, it stated that it will "continue to engage to encourage alignment". However, Sasol did not provide further details of this engagement, the outcomes sought, or the results.
The company does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address specific cases of misalignment or partial misalignment with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
Unilever is the only company to have met investor expectations in this area, showing evidence of action to address all cases of misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement, as identified by InfluenceMap’s database. In its review, the company included a section for each association titled “Actions (to be) taken” in which it outlined the actions taken or to be taken with the industry association as per its assessment. For example, Unilever stated that it would write to the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry stating that their positions do not reflect those of Unilever. It also disclosed it would encourage the European Roundtable for Industry to continue to engage constructively on the EU Green Deal and explore how it can revise its position on the EU Emissions Trading System.
Additionally, Unilever stated that for the 12 associations that were deemed “passively aligned” (minimal to non-existent policy engagement), the company will aim to push the associations to become more actively engaged in promoting outcomes and policies that aid in decarbonization.
In its 2023 review, Sasol stated that it incorporated third-party external assessments of the company and its industry associations using InfluenceMap's database. InfluenceMap's database is referenced consistently in Sasol's review.
Sasol also stated: "External assessments of companies and associations are often flawed, typically relying on limited publicly available and potentially incomplete data which also does not account for cooperation from the organisations being evaluated. Nor the context within which policy positions are taken or statements are made. A further limitation is that these assessments lack insight into voluntary, internal assessments being undertaken by companies and associations." Later, the company repeatedly states that "Sasol is of the view that this (InfluenceMap's) assessment is not informed by a full knowledge of our facts, context and positions."
In response, InfluenceMap provides two comments:
Each company’s engagement activities on climate-related policy are assessed using publicly accessible data sources to gather reliable and representative evidence. InfluenceMap uses seven data sources: (1) organizational website disclosures; (2) social media channels; (3) CDP responses; (4) direct consultation with governments, including those obtained via freedom of information request; (5) reliable media reporting; (6) CEO and top management statements; (7) and financial disclosures and investor communications. As such, the comprehensiveness of InfluenceMap's assessment is partly dependent on the completeness and accuracy of a company's disclosure of its own climate policy positions and engagement activities, as well those of its industry associations.
InfluenceMap does not take an internal position on climate policies. Each item of evidence is analyzed against external and authoritative benchmarks to provide a robust assessment of whether a company’s climate policy engagement activities are aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goals. There are two types of benchmarks used: (1) Governmental Policy Benchmarks - assessed against the original ambition of the policy as proposed by government or government-authorized bodies mandated to deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement; and (2) assessed against the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on achieving 1.5°C-aligned emission reductions.
InfluenceMap's full methodology is available here.
Sasol's last review was published in August 2023. Company reviews published more than two years prior to the end of InfluenceMap’s data collection period for the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark 2025 assessments - i.e. August 1st 2025 - will not be included in the updated review assessments. As such, Sasol's 2023 disclosure is not included in the review assessments.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Sasol's industry associations currently covered by InfluenceMap’s database by Performance Band, i.e. a full measure of a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations. Detailed profiles for all industry associations can be explored via the links in the table.
Industry associations are categorized by InfluenceMap as having climate policy engagement that is aligned, partially misaligned or misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement by Performance Band:
The ranking table below is updated automatically on a continual basis as: (1) new evidence is collected for the industry associations; (2) new industry associations are added to the company profile; (3) industry associations are removed from the company profile, e.g. if the company leaves the association.
As such, the industry associations and/or scores in the ranking table below may differ from the findings in Identify & Assess (Indirect) above, which was written on the date of assessment. See the top of this page for the date of assessment.
| Industry Association | InfluenceMap Performance Band | InfluenceMap Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| National Business Initiative (NBI) | B | Aligned |
| Industry Task Team on Climate Change | B- | Partially Aligned |
| Business Leadership South Africa | B- | Partially Aligned |
| American Cleaning Institute (ACI) | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| South African National Energy Association | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Minerals Council South Africa | C | Partially Aligned |
| Hydrogen Council | C | Partially Aligned |
| Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| Fuels Industry Association of South Africa (formerly SAPIA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| Chemical and Allied Industries Association | C- | Partially Aligned |
| China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation | C- | Partially Aligned |
| European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| Energy Council of South Africa | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| American Chemistry Council (ACC) | D | Misaligned |
| Energy Intensive Users Group of South Africa | D | Misaligned |
| German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) | D | Misaligned |
