151003 JSE Nkonki Top 100 report email version

Experience Ingenuity.
Insights into the Top 100* JSE Listed Companies
Integrated Reporting Trends
© Nkonki Proprietary 2015
Also available on:

Insights into the Top 100* JSE Listed
Companies Integrated Reporting Trends
*An analysis of the Top 100 JSE Listed
Companies
Disclaimer
This document is proprietary to
Nkonki and the information herein is
confidential. It is supplied in confidence
and should not be disclosed, duplicated
or otherwise revealed in whole or in part
to any third parties without the prior
written consent of Nkonki.

Foreword
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 – Research findings and results
Chapter 2 – Industry analysis
Chapter 3 – Qualitative insights
Chapter 4 – New trends in integrated reporting in South Africa
Annexure A – The mark plan, adjudication process and panel
Annexure B – Integrated reporting ratings, rankings and industries
Annexure C – Maturity chart
Annexure D - High level roadmap
About Nkonki
3
1
18
6
30
34
37
39
49
51
53

1
Insights into the Top 100* JSE Listed Companies Integrated Reporting Trends
Transparency with a
purpose
South Africa is in a unique
position when it comes
to Integrated Reporting.
Since 2010 companies
listed on the Johannesburg
Stock Exchange have
been required to prepare
integrated reports because
the principles of King
III (which include the
preparation of integrated
reports) fall into the Listing
Requirements on an apply or
explain basis.
As CEO of the International Integrated Reporting Council, the
South African experience has offered me many crucial insights.
Initially, it enabled us to draw on the learnings of South African
companies when developing the International IR Framework
- which was piloted by many companies in South Africa as well
as internationally - to ensure it was aligned to the needs of
businesses.
Now, the South African experience enables us to reflect on how
the Framework is being applied by businesses that have been
working towards IR for many years, giving us case studies
and research to share with the wider world as more and more
businesses move towards IR. Nkonki’s report gives crucial
insight in this respect into the opportunities and challenges
experienced by mature integrated reporters.
Three indicators stood out for me in this survey. Firstly, that
companies have scored well for their strategic focus. Integrated
Reporting is about entering the company through the doorway
of strategy. This is important, because when organizations think
about their strategy for the short, medium and long term they
start to actively consider future risks and what actions they can
take now to alleviate them. It also gives providers of financial
capital the reassurance they need to invest over longer time
horizons, because they understand how businesses are planning
for the future. Future orientation is a clear distinction between the
corporate reporting system of old and the new form of reporting
that is taking shape. Instead of reporting backward-looking sets
of financial results, that quickly become outdated, an integrated
report delves into how value will be created now and in the
future.
The second thing to stand out to me was that businesses are
struggling with the fundamental concepts in the Framework.
This is striking, because it suggests these businesses are not
taking advantage of the opportunity that now exists to articulate
a business strategy that goes beyond financial transactions.
Businesses should articulate the multi-capitals they are using in
their business models, using Integrated Reporting as a vehicle to
explain how the company creates value. If South Africa’s biggest
companies really do only have financial transactions as the drivers
of their business models, then that might cause problems for the
South African economy over time. But I do not believe that this
is the case in reality and I hope, as they advance their corporate
reporting further, they will be able to start to articulate the multi-
capitals (or resources and relationships) they use and affect in
their business models, and furthermore, recognise the benefits of
doing so.
Finally, this report recognizes a struggle that is common to all
businesses – the art of being concise. As Mark Twain eloquently
phrased it,“I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I
wrote a long one instead.”Being concise, when faced with ever
increasing demands to be transparent, is a challenge. However
it is one that organizations need to tackle, because a report is
only useful if the reader can understand what the key, pertinent
messages they should be taking away from it are. As the Financial
Chief of General Electric said when it was pointed out to him that
General Electric’s annual report is 32,950 words longer than Harry
Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,“Not a retail investor on planet
Earth could get through it, let alone understand it.”
Instead of being transparent for the sake of transparency,
Integrated Reporting encourages a business to be transparent
with a purpose – a purpose of communicating how all of its
resources create value over time. There are great opportunities
for this concise form of reporting to become a reality. Not least
if we take advantage of the digital revolution which has swept
across the world thanks to the success of cloud, social and
mobile technologies. Although this revolution has created new
challenges for businesses as they deal with faster and vaster
flows of information both inside the company and externally with
stakeholders, if harnessed properly it can bring new meaning to
the corporate reporting process as businesses get used to the
new world of real-time engagement with stakeholders.
I would like to thank Nkonki for compiling this research, it gives
me confidence that businesses are finding the Framework to
be valuable guidance as they evolve their corporate reporting
practices. But what is the end game? Why does corporate
reporting need to keep up – what is its importance?
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
Paul Druckman, CEO, International
Integrated Reporting Council

2
2014 market capitalisation of Top
100 companies: Total revenue:
R8.6
trillion
2014:
R3.2 trillion
2013:
R2.9 trillion
R7.4
trillion
2014:
R10.7 trillion
2013:
R9.6 trillion
2013 market capitalisation of Top
100 companies:
Total assets:
Interesting Statistics
Longest integrated report:
2014: 516 pages
2013: 456 pages
2012: 426 pages
2014: 169
2013: 157
2012: 175
Average number of pages of
integrated reports:
The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) believes that
corporate reporting reform can help align capital allocation and
corporate behaviour to the wider goals of financial stability and
sustainable development.
For obvious reasons corporate reporting reform alone will not
bring about financial stability and sustainable development. The
work of the IIRC goes hand in hand with other efforts around the
world, which is why we are working through our networks and
within our coalition to encourage three shifts. Firstly, a shift from
a financial capital market system to an inclusive capital market
system. We are encouraging governments, central banks, stock
exchanges and standard setters to recognise the interconnection
between elements such as finance, knowledge and other
resources, and embed systems of governance that enable this.
The second shift the IIRC is calling for is from short-term capital
markets to sustainable capital markets - to end the incentive
systems that perpetuate short-term thinking and decision-making.
And finally, the third shift is from silo reporting to Integrated
Reporting. Together these three shifts can be a force for financial
stability and sustainable development in markets around the
world.
For many, such as these businesses in South Africa, the third
shift towards Integrated Reporting is already a reality. There
are currently around 1,000 businesses around the world who
are using the International IR Framework to think holistically
about their strategy and plans. Many of them – around 750
people – engage with the IIRC through IR Networks to advance
corporate reporting together, learning from each other to find the
best ways of moving towards IR. If you would like to become
part of an IR Network and work with others to advance your
corporate reporting in the areas identified in this report visit www.
integratedreporting.org or email business.network@theiirc.org.

3
This is the fifth year that Nkonki is recognising the top companies
listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) for their
integrated reports. The annual award started in 2011 and initially
covered only the Top 40 companies by market capitalisation.
In 2012 to 2014, the scope was extended to cover the Top 100
companies due to the prevalence of integrated reporting in
South Africa.
Nkonki is proud that South African companies have embraced
integrated reporting and have a wealth of experience to share
with others. We are proud that, through this award, our firm
is playing an active role in assisting companies to improve
their reports and strive for best practice reporting. Nkonki
has developed tools to assist companies, both listed and
public sector, in their integrated reporting journey: the Nkonki
Roadmap to Integrated Reporting and the Nkonki Integrated
Reporting Maturity Chart. These tools are available on www.
nkonki.com and provide essential insights to companies
planning to prepare an integrated report and those wishing to
assess their readiness to do so or their maturity level.
In this year’s awards, a new mark plan was introduced based
solely on the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC)
International IR Framework (Framework) issued in December
2013. The mark plan evaluated the application of the guiding
principles and content elements (indicators) of the Framework. It
also includes a points allocation for the“Wow Factor”, rewarding
innovation in the report. The mark plan differs significantly from
those of previous years which included other aspects such as
King III and certain JSE Listings Requirements. This should be
taken into account when considering comparative figures. (See
Annexure A for detailed information on the mark plan). In the
past surveys, those companies featured on the JSE’s Socially
Responsible Investment (SRI) Index were included and therefore
the number of companies exceeded 100, however for the 2014
reports the focus is only on the top 100 JSE listed companies,
even though 105 companies were surveyed.
An analysis of the 105 companies surveyed (2013:107 companies)
is covered in chapter 1. The results, as seen in the table below,
show that the companies scored above 70% in six of the ten
indicators. This is an admirable performance and testament to
their experience in integrated reporting despite the Framework
having been issued only in December 2013. The companies did
particularly well in covering Strategic Focus information as well
as Comparable and Consistent information. They scored less
favourably (below 50%), however, in Fundamental Concepts and
the Wow Factor for innovation. Conciseness is on the borderline
coming in at a score of 54%.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0
20
40
60
80
100
62%
78%
71% 69%
54%
71% 73%
84%
45%
72%
14%
StrategicFocus
Stakeholder
Relationships
TheWowFactor
Totalaverage
finalscore
Content
Elements
*Fundamental
Concepts
Consistencyand
Comparability
Reliabilityand
Completeness
Conciseness
Materiality
Connectivityof
Information
Average Score per Framework Indicator
* Companies need to improve on the Fundamental concepts. In terms of the IR Framework, Fundamental concepts deal with the disclosure of how value is created and how companies use
the various 6 capitals in their value creation process. Companies are expected to consider and disclose the impact of their value creation process on their overall stock of capitals over the long
term.

4
Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited emerged as a surprise winner this
year as the company was not previously included in the Top 100
due to its market capitalisation. All of the companies in the top
10 list achieved excellence in integrated reporting and are fine
examples of current best practice in South Africa, and indeed
globally.
Chapter 2 sets out Industry analysis, in nine sectors, based on the
average scores of the surveyed companies. The leading sectors,
shown in the table below, are Telecommunications and Basic
Materials (Oil Gas was excluded as there is only one company in
the sector). The Technology sector fell into last place after ranking
highly in previous years.
The Top 10 Companies
Congratulations to the following companies whose reports are in this year’s Top 101
list:
Tsogo Sun
Holdings Limited
Royal Bafokeng
Platinum Limited
ArcelorMittal
South Africa
Limited
Nedbank Group
Limited
Liberty Holdings
Limited
• Nampak Limited
and
• Redefine
Properties Limited
Pretoria Portland
Cement Limited
Sanlam Limited Sasol Limited
Barloworld
Limited
6
1
7
2
8
3
9
4
10
5
1 There are a total of 12 companies as a result of three companies sharing 6th position.

5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In chapter 3, there are excerpts from the reports of companies
covering elements such as the business model, capitals and value
creation. While these excerpts will be helpful to other companies
it’s worth remembering that each company will find its own way
to best tell its value creation story with the input of the board or
other governance body and the executive.
Once again, we extend our congratulations to each of the award
winners. We thank the adjudicators for their hard work and
dedication in the task of marking over 100 reports and we look
forward to another year of promoting better corporate reporting
in South Africa.
The winning companies in each Industry are:
Industry Company Name
Basic Materials Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited
Consumer Goods Tongaat Hulett Limited
Consumer Services Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited
Financials Nedbank Group Limited
Healthcare Life Healthcare Group Holdings Limited
Industrials Nampak Limited
Oil Gas Sasol Limited
Technology Business Connexion Group Limited
Telecommunications Vodacom Group
Average Score per Industry
0
20
40
60
80
100
Basic
Materials
72%
58% 58% 57%
61%
66%
82%
50%
78%
Consumer
Goods
Financials
Telecommuni-
cations
Technology
OilGas
Industrials
Healthcare
Consumer
Services

This chapter covers the analysis of the Top 100 JSE Listed Companies
(2013: 107 companies). The mark plan was changed this year to focus on
the International IR Framework (refer to Annexure A), and this should be
taken into account when considering comparative figures.
The mark plan covered the following indicators of the Framework:
• Strategic Focus 17
• Connectivity of Information 17
• Stakeholder Relationships 17
• Materiality 17
• Conciseness 17
• Reliability and Completeness 17
• Consistency and Comparibility 17
• Fundamental Concepts 32
• Content Elements 32
• The Wow Factor 17
Total: 200 marks
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS
CHAPTER 1
6

7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Percentage Rating of Companies
Seventy-six of the 105 companies (2013:101 of the 107 companies), scored above 50% and the average was 62% (2013:69%). Although
this decrease might be perceived as negative, it should be taken into account that the marking was stricter due to the new mark plan
that was implemented this year as outlined in Annexure A. Further, comparison can be made against the average score of 59% allocated
to the integrated reporting section in last year’s mark plan. Furthermore, one should bear in mind that the“low-hanging fruit”in the
previous mark plan became easier to implement, such as reporting on directors and their remuneration became so much better that
many companies could earn top scores for these and similar items.
The 2014 results, with the mark plan around the International IR Framework, offers a useful baseline for assessing the integrated
reports of the Top 100 companies on the JSE going forward.
Below is the trend analysis of the average scores over the years albeit with different mark plans:
The analysis of the 2014 average score is represented below (including the comparative figures), indicating the percentage of companies
with ratings of between A and D:
CHAPTER 1
A Rating
80% – 100%
B Rating
70% – 79%
C Rating
60% – 69%
D Rating
50% – 59%
Below D Rating
0 – 49%
CHAPTER 1 – RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS
A B C D Below D
15%
21%
26%
29%
19%
33%
16%
11%
24%
6%
2013 2014
2011
59%
2012
66%
2013
69%
2014
62%

8
Average Score Per Framework Indicator
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
62%
78%
71% 69% 71%
54%
73%
84%
72%
14%
45%
Stakeholder
Relationships
TheWowFactor
Totalaverage
finalscore
ContentElements
Fundamental
Concepts
Consistencyand
Comparability
Reliabilityand
Completeness
Conciseness
Materiality
Connectivityof
Information
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1.1 Scores Achieved in each Indicator
1.1.1 Strategic Focus
A B C D Below D
67%
3%
19%
2%
9%
91 of the companies
scored higher than a D
rating and the average
score was 78%.
The results highlight a
substantial gap between
“Strategic Focus”and“Consistency
and Comparability”on the one hand
(scores around 80%) and“The Wow
Factor”and“Fundamental Concepts”
scoring below 50% on the other.
Conciseness is on the borderline
with a score of 54%.
The survey reveals that the reports have a strong strategic focus, scoring an average of 78.4% in this area. Some of the companies
showed how strategic priorities will create long-term shareholder value, which was linked to performance metrics for directors in the
short-, medium- and long-term. Most strategies were presented in an illustrative manner through tables and info-graphics making them
clear and understandable. Many of the statements made by the chairman of the board and the chief executive in the integrated reports
made good connections to the companies’strategies, reiterating and reinforcing the future outlook of the company by the leadership.

9
1.1. 2 Connectivity of Information
CHAPTER 1
1.1.3 Stakeholder Relationships
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
Below D
Below D
49%
47%
7%
10%
24%
31%
3%
0%
18%
11%
89 of the companies
scored higher than
a D rating and the
average score
was 71%.
82 of the
companies
scored higher than
a D rating and the
average score
was 69%.
The level of Connectivity of information in the reports, with an average score of 71% is good, with the majority of companies
demonstrating a logical approach to the structure and content of their reports. The survey found that most companies are making use of
cross references, tables and graphics, which makes the information flow and the connection between processes and information more
comprehensible and easier to read. The content elements are being interlinked, with good flow between qualitative and quantitative
information and information linked to future outlook. It is also notable that most companies had cross-referenced to additional reports
and detailed information on their websites. Room for improvement though is in the area of connecting the capitals by indicating their
interdependencies.
The majority of companies mention stakeholders in their reports with most identifying the various stakeholder groups, which range
from communities to providers of capital. Forty-nine percent of the companies that are A rated, articulated how they engage with
their stakeholders. The impact of these engagements on the company’s value creation process was also well articulated. The effective
use of tables and cross referencing, as well as links to other content elements, helped to clarify the approach taken in terms of
stakeholder relationships. Some companies address their reports to investors (providers of financial capital) while others address it to all
stakeholders.

10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
Below D
Below D
1.1.4 Materiality
1.1.5 Conciseness
58%
4%
21%
3%
15%
38%
5%
15%
1%
42%
85 of the
companies
scored higher than
a D rating and the
average score
was 71%.
58 of the
companies scored
higher than
a D rating and the
average score
was 54%.
Only 15% of the Top 100 companies did not disclose material issues or the determination process. On the opposite end of the continuum,
58% of companies scored highly in Materiality. The majority of companies that disclose material issues, do so upfront in the report and
then connect these to other content elements such as risks and opportunities, strategy, resource allocation and KPIs. These material items
identified by companies range across financial and non-financial aspects. In some instances companies indicate that stakeholders had an
influence on the prioritisation of material issues.
Many companies in the Top 100 are still struggling when it comes to the conciseness of their reports. With the longest report at 516
pages and 42% of the companies scoring below a D rating, it is clear that improvement is required. The average number of pages in
the 2014 reports is 169 (2013: 157) Thirty-eight percent of companies surveyed made good use of diagrams and tables, but only some
included summarised Annual Financial Statements in their reports which is an easy way to cut down on the number of pages.

11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D Below D
0
20
40
60
80
100
A B C D Below D
CHAPTER 1
1.1.6 Reliability and Completeness
1.1.7 Consistency and Comparability
60%
3%
20%
1%
16%
81%
2%
14%
0% 3%
84 of the
companies
scored higher than
a D rating and the
average score
was 73%.
97 of the
companies
scored higher than
a D rating and the
average score
was 84%.
The surveyed companies scored an average of 74.9% on Reliability and Completeness. A number of companies’reports deal with the
concept of combined assurance, clearly articulating the various lines of defense and the well-established governance structures with
defined terms of references. The long history of King III and discipline in financial reporting are two of the factors Nkonki believes have
contributed to South African companies scoring well in this indicator.
Consistency and comparability of information, which scored an average of 84%, with 81% of the companies obtaining an A rating, is
clearly an element that is understood within the Top 100 companies. In particular the financial information, performance against targets
and KPIs, and the governance information, have a strong connection to similar information published in prior year. Nkonki believes the
maturity of this guiding principle can be attributed to the maturity of corporate reporting, such as embracing the International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS) and code of governance principles of King III, of the companies listed on the JSE.

12
1.1.8 Fundamental Concepts
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D Below D
25%
8%
6% 6%
57%
1.1.9 Content Elements
0
10
20
30
40
50
A B C D Below D
47%
22%
12%
9% 9%
91 of the
companies
scored higher than a
D rating and the
average score
was 72%.
It is clear from the results, with 57% of the companies scoring below a D rating, that South African companies are still on a journey with
respect to being able to articulate their business models, in other words, how they create value through the use of all of the capitals
over the short-, medium- and long-term. In most cases, the majority of the companies do, however, have a good understanding of the
business model in terms of“financial capital”and the value creation thereof, but there is clearly a need to improve in terms of reporting
on non-financial capitals.
The content elements outlined in the International IR Framework were mostly disclosed and presented in the reports of the Top 100
companies with an average score of 72%. As mentioned in the Connectivity commentary, 47% of companies made good links between
the content elements, making the value creation story of the company unique and more easily understood. While the presentation
of the information differed from company to company, there were some similarities between companies within the same sector,
particularly those in Financial Services and Basic Materials.
Only 43 of the
companies
scored higher than
a D rating and the
average score
was 45%.

13
CHAPTER 1
1.1.10 The Wow Factor
0
20
40
60
80
100
A B C D Below D
0% 0% 6%
3%
92%
92 of the
companies
scored lower than a D
rating and the
average score was
just 14%.
It is obvious from the scores achieved that one of the areas needing the most attention is the so-called“Wow Factor”. The“Wow Factor”
indicates innovation and uniqueness and these can only be achieved once a company is very mature in its integrated reporting process,
when those in charge of governance are so familiar with the process that new and exciting ideas start formulating.
“The reliability of information is affected by its balance and freedom from material
error. Reliability (which is often referred to as faithful representation) is enhanced
by mechanisms such as robust internal control and reporting systems, stakeholder
engagement, internal audit or similar functions, and independent, external assurance.”
The above is the only reference in the International IR
Framework to assurance. Following the release of the IIRC’s paper
Overview of Feedback and Call for Action, the baton has now been
handed to the International Auditing and Assurance Standards
Board (IAASB), specifically its Integrated Reporting Working
Group. The group released a publication Exploring Assurance on
Integrated Reporting and Other Emerging Developments in External
Reporting in July 2015 and the next step will be the release of a
discussion paper.
1.2 Reliability of Information
The International IR Framework states:

14
It is of concern that 36% of the Top 100 listed companies in South Africa do not obtain any assurance on their non-financial disclosure in
their reports.
25%
6%Internal audit and external
assurance
Internal audit
Internal audit and other
External assurance and
other
External assurance
None
Other
36%
11%
16%
2%
4%
Types of non-financial
assurance providers
The Top 100 companies referred to various assurance providers in their reports. Some explained their assurance policy, as set by the
board, and listed the context of assurance and the assurance providers.
The graphic below shows the various assurance provider used to assure certain non-financial information disclosed in the report.
Types of Non-Financial Assurance Providers:
Non-Financial Assurance Providers:

15
CHAPTER 1
1.3 Timing of Reports versus Scores Achieved
One would expect, that with the release of the International IR
Framework in December 2013, that companies with a year-end
later in the 2014 year would have done better in their scores and
ratings as opposed to those with year-ends earlier in year. This
is because it would have taken time for companies to process
the latest guidelines and apply these in their integrated reports.
Looking at the graph of the average and highest scores per year-
end this certainly seemed to be the case.
This analysis should, however, determine how good a company’s
integrated report is. An example is the winner, Tsogo Sun
Holdings Limited, which scored the highest, even having a 31
March 2014 year-end. Furthermore, it was the first time that
this company was part of the Top 100 group. Therefore better
integrated reports can be produced by any company, despite its
year-end or even history (to an extent).
1.4 Length of Reports
The average number of pages of the report was 169, with the
longest report being 516 pages. In 2013, the average number of
pages was 157, with the longest report being 456 pages. In 2012,
the average number of pages was 175, with the longest report
being 426 pages, so this can be regarded as a negative trend.
The shortest report in 2014 is 63 pages compared to 36 pages in
2013 and 63 in 2012.
It is clear that conciseness is still an issue for many companies.
This might be because of a lack of focus on material items. A
factor could be that 53 of the companies still included in 2014
the full AFS in their reports. Many companies however, included
only abridged or summarised AFS. One company included both
a full and an abridged set of AFS in its report. On the opposite
end of the scale, four companies did not include any financial
statement in their integrated reports.
47 companies produced separate sustainability or similar reports,
being an average of 55 pages.
Timeline: Average and Highest Score Per Year-End
0
20
40
60
80
100
February - 14 March - 14 June - 14 August - 14 September - 14 December - 14
48%
60%
92%
82%
48% 48%
65%
85%
70%
89%
59% 59%
Average % Highest%

16
1.5 Title of Reports
Integrated Report
Annual Integrated Report
Annual Report
Annual Report
and Accounts
Integrated Annual Report
38%
9%
9%
4%
40%
Title of the JSE Top 100
Companie’s Reports
“Research commissioned by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has
revealed significant behavioural change and strong benefits to both preparers and
users of financial reports arise that from a move to integrated reporting. The research
reports indicate that 91% of respondents have seen a positive impact on external
engagement with stakeholders, including investors. Eighty seven percent of the
businesses that have published at least one integrated report, believe that investors
better understand their strategy; 79% of respondents report improvements in decision
making; 68% report a better understanding of risks and opportunities, and 78% seeing
better collaborative thinking by the board about goals and targets.”
The IIRC, 2015

17
CHAPTER 1
The title“Integrated Report”is the most mature name, indicating
that there is only one kind of report, which is produced annually
and which integrates all relevant information into one integrated
package.
The name“Integrated Annual Report”is still the most popular.
However, this creates the perception that there are other
annual reports over and above the integrated one (which can
be regarded as true in many instances, where there are also
sustainability reports, annual financial statements, etc.). This has,
however, decreased from 46% in 2013.
The“Annual Integrated Report”alludes to the fact that there
are other integrated reports, for example half-yearly integrated
reports, or quarterly integrated reports. This accounts for 9% of
the names, the same as in 2013.
Although there is not a direct relationship, most of the
companies that still publish“Annual Reports”were still en
route to Integrated IR Reporting. They represent 9% of the
companies (2013: 8%). The term“Annual Report and Accounts”
are all used by either UK or Swiss registered companies (four in
total).
1.6 Commendable Features
Some commendable features in the report noted by the
adjudicators during the assessments (excluding the Top 10
companies) include the following:
• AECI Limited has a very good risk maturity model as well as a
corporate governance self-assessment model.
• Sappi Limited’s sustainable business model.
• Grindrod Limited’s disclosure of its integrated business model.
• Wilson Bayly Holmes-Ovcon Limited’s strategic risk matrix, as
well as four pages dedicated to the future outlook.
• Exxaro Resources Limited, the winner last year, still displayed
pockets of excellence. Its G4 Core table is exceptionally
comprehensive, and there is an excellent environmental
graphic, as well as graphics relating to strategy and philosophy.
There is excellent risk disclosure and a top 10 risk heat map is
included.
• Life Healthcare Group Holdings Limited shows a very good link
between capitals and strategic objectives.
• Gold Fields Limited impressed with its dashboard, its internal
and external standards and principles and its risk and
materiality graphs.
• Tongaat Hulett Limited went the extra mile in disclosing land
development maps.
• Some of the PLC companies already include the latest long-
form external audit report in their annual reports and accounts,
e.g. Redefine International PLC, Capital Counties Properties
PLC, Intu Properties PLC, Mondi PLC, Old Mutual PLC, Investec
PLC, Anglo American PLC, BHP Billiton PLC, Lonmin PLC, British
American Tobacco PLC and SABMiller PLC.
• Hyprop Investments Limited drafted a unique graphic
combining focus areas, material issues, measures and risks.
• Mondi Limited and PLC discloses excellent stakeholder
engagement activities in the sustainability report – it is
unfortunate that a summary wasn’t included in the integrated
report.
• Although Woolworths Holdings discloses a good stakeholder
engagement model in its integrated report, the only discussion
takes place in the sustainability report.
• AngloGold Ashanti Limited discloses that it has a Serious
Concerns Committee which started in 2014, to investigate
ethical and other allegations.
• Sibanye Gold describes an excellent strategic risk matrix, as well
as including a graphic of the report content and material issues.
It also has a summarised integrated report in addition to the
“normal”one of 240 pages.
• Standard Bank Group Limited shows its integrated pillars for
strategy, and states that integrated thinking was adopted.
• Telkom SA SOC Limited has a very good section on stakeholder
engagement.
• Mediclinic International Limited includes an excellent table for
combined assurance, but it is a pity it is in the sustainability
report and not in the integrated report. The integrated report
contains an excellent materiality assessment matrix.
• Imperial Holdings Limited has an excellent governance model in
its integrated report, as well as an excellent combined assurance
model.
• Old Mutual PLC outlines five pillars of responsible business
which are then linked to the largest stakeholders.

This chapter gives analysis of the integrated reports of the Top 100 JSE listed
companies in terms of their Sectors. As in the past, the Telecommunications sector
performed well, in terms of its overall score (Oil Gas should be ignored as the
sector is represented by one company only). The winners in each category are
named in the Executive Summary.
Industry Analysis
CHAPTER 2
18

19
The Industry analysis shows that the leading sectors are Telecommunications, Basic Materials and Industrials (Oil Gas has not included
as there is only one company in that sector). The Healthcare sector has always done reasonably well in this analysis, although it has now
been surpassed by Basic Materials and Industrials. The Technology sector lagged with an average score of 50%.
The award winners in each of the sectors (all those companies which scored an A rating, except for Sasol again) are the following:
CHAPTER 2
Industry and Companies
Basic Materials
Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited
ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited
Anglo American Platinum Limited
Gold Fields Limited
Consumer Services
Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited
Financials
Nedbank Group Limited
CHAPTER 2 – INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
Average Score per Industry
Overall Ratings
0
20
40
60
80
100
72%
58% 58% 57%
61%
66%
82%
50%
78%
BasicMaterials
ConsumerGoods
Financials
Telecommunications
Technology
OilGas
Industrials
Healthcare
ConsumerServices

20
Industry and Companies
Financials continued
Liberty Holdings Limited
Redefine Properties Limited
Sanlam Limited
Healthcare
Life Healthcare Group Holdings Limited
Industrials
Nampak Limited
Pretoria Portland Cement Limited
Barloworld Limited
Wilson Bayly Holmes-Ovcon Limited
Oil Gas
Sasol Limited
Industry Evaluation
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
Stakeholder
Relationships
Conciseness
Materiality
Connectivityof
Information
Basic Materials Consumer Goods Consumer Services Financials Healthcare Industrial Technology Telecommunications

21
It is useful to analyse the disclosure recommendations of the International IR Framework in terms of which sectors are leading or
lagging in each indicator. The graph above and the table below exclude the Oil Gas sector, as it is represented by only one company,
and the sector is also excluded from the analysis in the remainder of this chapter.
Leading and Lagging Industries
Industry Evaluation Continued
CHAPTER 2
Framework Indicator Leading Industry Lagging Industry
Strategic Focus Telecommunications Technology
Connectivity of Information Telecommunications Consumer Services
Stakeholder Relationships Telecommunications Financials
Materiality Basic Materials Technology
Conciseness Telecommunications Technology
Reliability and Completeness Telecommunications Technology
Consistency and Comparability Telecommunications Consumer Services
Fundamental Concepts Basic Materials Technology
Content Elements Telecommunications Technology
The Wow Factor
Basic Materials and Financials and
Industrial
Technology
0
20
40
60
80
100
TheWowFactor
ContentElements
Fundamental
Concepts
Consistencyand
Comparability
Reliabilityand
Completeness
Basic Materials Consumer Goods Consumer Services Financials Healthcare Industrial Technology Telecommunications

22
It is clear that Telecommunications is the strongest Industry in
terms of integrated reporting, while the Technology sector is
lagging in almost every respect. Having said that, one should
remember that each of these industries is represented by only
three companies in the Top 100 and that this may skew average
statistics. It should be noted, however, that Technology was one
of the leading industries in previous years.
In the category analysis that follows, only the top three positions
in each category are Listed. A full list of all the company ratings
per Industry is given in Annexure B.
2.2 Basic Materials
Top rated performers in the Basic Materials Sector are:
The winner, Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited, was sixth in 2013. Exxaro Resources Limited was the winner in 2013 and in 2012, and is
fifth in 2014. Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited was the winner in 2011.
Company Name Rating
Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited 1
ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited 2
Anglo American Platinum Limited 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
90%
75%
81%
89%
41%
87% 89%
62%
18%
72%
84%
StakeholderRelationships
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
ConsistencyandComparability
ReliabilityandCompleteness
Conciseness
Materiality
ConnectivityofInformation

23
The Basic Materials Sector scored very well on Strategic Focus,
Materiality, and Consistency and Comparability. However, more
work can be done on Conciseness and on being innovative and
creative (the Wow Factor). Overall the Industry scored an average
of 72% (2013:75% and 2012:69%) against the highest average
Sector score of 78% (2013:77% and 2012:72%) excluding Oil
Gas.
The reports of all three winners in this sector can be regarded as
good examples for those wishing to follow their lead. They are
among the top seven overall.
2.3 Consumer Goods
Top rated performers in the Consumer Goods Sector are:
Tongaat Hulett limited was the winner in 2012 and in 2011, and was second in 2013. Illovo Sugar Limited was first in 2013, and is now
fourth.
CHAPTER 2
Company Name Rating
Tongaat Hulett Limited 1
Oceana Group Limited 2
Steinhoff International Holdings Limited 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
73%
67% 66% 65%
55%
75%
85%
35%
1%
58%
66%
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
Conciseness
Materiality

24
The Consumer Goods Sector scored very well on Consistency
and Comparability, Strategic Focus, and on Reliability and
Completeness. More work can be done on applying the
Fundamental Concepts and on being innovative and creative
(the Wow Factor). Overall the Sector scored an average of 58%
(2013:63% and 2012:58%) against the highest average Sector
score of 78% (2013:77% and 2012:72%) excluding Oil Gas.
2.4 Consumer Services
Top rated performers in the Consumer Services Sector are:
Woolworths was the winner in this sector from 2011 to 2013, and is now second placed. Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited, the winner, was not
included in the awards in previous years.
Company Name Rating
Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited 1
Woolworths Holdings 2
The Foschini Group Limited 3
Truworths International Limited 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
StrategicFocus
76%
66% 64% 67% 67%
61%
78%
41%
7%
58%
68%
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
Conciseness
Materiality

25
The Consumer Services Sector scored very well on Consistency
and Comparability and on Strategic Focus. More work can be
done on applying the Fundamental Concepts and on being
innovative and creative (the Wow Factor). Overall the Sector
scored an average of 58% (2013:69% and 2012:69%) against the
highest average Sector score of 78% (2013:77% and 2012:72%).
The report of Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited (the overall winner)
can be regarded as an excellent example for those wishing to
follow its lead.
2.5 Financials
Top rated performers in the Financials Sector are:
The winner, Nedbank Group Limited, was also the winner in 2011 and was second in 2013. Standard Bank Group Limited was the winner
in 2012 and 2013 and has now dropped to seventh place.
CHAPTER 2
Company Name Rating
Nedbank Group Limited 1
Liberty Holdings Limited 2
Sanlam Limited 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
75%
69% 60% 58%
52%
65%
82%
35%
18%
57%
68%
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
Conciseness
Materiality

26
The Financials Sector scored very well on Consistency and
Comparability and on Strategic Focus. More work can be done
on applying the Fundamental Concepts and on being innovative
and creative (the Wow Factor). Overall the Sector scored an
average of 57% (2013:64% and 2012:59%) against the highest
average Sector score of 78% (2013:77% and 2012:72%) excluding
Oil Gas.
The reports of all four winners in this sector can be regarded as
good examples for those wishing to follow their lead. They are
among the top eight overall in this award.
2.6 Healthcare
Top rated performers in the Healthcare Sector are:
Life Healthcare Group Holdings Limited was third in 2013 while Aspen Pharmacare Holdings was the winner in 2012 and 2011. Mediclinic
International Limited was first in 2013.
Company Name Rating
Life Healthcare Group Holdings Limited 1
Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Limited 2
Mediclinic International Limited 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
70% 70% 68%
84%
50%
74%
82%
38%
12%
61%
73%
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
Conciseness
Materiality

27
The Healthcare Goods Sector scored outstandingly in terms of
Materiality and Consistency and Comparability. More work can
be done on applying the Fundamental Concepts and on being
innovative and creative (the Wow Factor). Overall the Sector
scored an average of 61% (2013:73% and 2012:66%) against the
highest average Sector score of 78% (2013:77% and 2012:72%).
The report of Life Healthcare Group Holdings Limited (in eleventh
overall place) can be regarded as a good example for those
wishing to follow its lead.
2.7 Industrials
Top rated performers in the Industrials Sector are:
Nampak Limited came in as the winner after being in seventh place in 2013. Pretoria Portland Cement Limited was the winner in 2013,
2012 and in 2011, while Barloworld Limited was in second place in 2013.
CHAPTER 2
Company Name Rating
Nampak Limited 1
Pretoria Portland Cement Limited 2
Barloworld Limited 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
72%
78%
73% 76%
63%
76%
85%
53%
18%
65%
71%
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
Conciseness
Materiality

28
The Industrials sector scored very well on Consistency and
Comparability and in a number of other Indicators. More work
can be done on being innovative and creative (the Wow Factor).
Overall the Sector scored an average of 66% (2013:70% and
2012:71%) against the highest average Sector score of 78%
(2013:77% and 2012:72%).
The reports of all three winners in this Sector can be regarded as
good examples for those wishing to follow their lead.
2.8 Technology
Top-rated performers in the Technology Sector are (this Sector
only has three companies which were included in the study):
Datatec Limited was the winner in 2013 and in 2012. Business Connexion Group Limited was the winner in 2011 and was in second place
in 2013 (only two companies were in this Sector then).
Company Name Rating
Business Connexion Group Limited 1
EOH Holdings Ltd. 2
Datatec Limited 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
StrategicFocus
63%
67% 67%
57%
37%
60%
80%
18%
0%
50%
65%
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
Conciseness
Materiality

29
The Technology Sector scored well on Consistency and
Comparability. More work can be done on a number of
Indicators, but particularly on applying the Fundamental
Concepts, on being innovative and creative (the Wow Factor),
and on Conciseness. Overall the Sector scored an average of 50%
(2013:66% and 2012:63%) against the highest average Sector
score of 78% (2013:77% and 2012:72%).
2.9 Telecommunications
Top-rated performers in the Telecommunications Sector are (this
Sector only has three companies which were included in the
study):
The Telecommunications Sector scored extremely well on:
• Consistency and Comparability
• Strategic Focus
• Reliability and Completeness
• The Content Elements
• Connectivity of Information
• Stakeholder Relationships
• Materiality
More work should be done on being innovative and creative
(the Wow Factor). Overall the Sector scored an average of 78%
(2013:77% and 2012:72%), the highest of all the industries.
This is the Sector with the highest scores and is thus very competitive.
CHAPTER 2
Company Name Rating
Vodacom Group 1
Telkom SA SOC 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
StrategicFocus
93% 90%
87% 87%
77%
89%
98%
61%
11%
78%
88%
TheWowFactor
Totalaveragescore
ContentElements
FundamentalConcepts
Consistencyand
Comparability
Conciseness
Materiality

QUALITATIVE INSIGHTS
CHAPTER 3
It is obvious from the scores achieved that the two areas
needing the most attention are the so-called“Wow Factor”
and the“Fundamental Concepts”. The“Wow Factor”shows
innovation and distinctiveness and can only be achieved once
a company is so mature in its integrated reporting process
that those in charge of governance are very familiar with the
process that new and exciting ideas start developing.
The“Fundamental Concepts”, which includes having a business
model with the input and output capitals and the process of
value creation, is a relatively new concept, having only come
into being in December 2013, when the International IR
Framework was published.
Most of the other Indicators have been around for some time
now (King III, etc.), and so are familiar to most companies. For
this reason they have done fairly well in terms of disclosing
risks and opportunities, governance, performance and future
outlook, to name but a few.
For these reasons, this chapter will focus solely on the
“Fundamental Concepts”(business model, capitals and value
creation) and how these were reported by the Top Five.
30

31
A number of excellent practical examples
from the Top 5 companies have been
included this year to help provide clarity
on many aspects of the business model,
capitals and value creation, as well as
give tangible examples of what can be
done to improve this aspect of integrated
reporting, which can be quite difficult to
fully comprehend based on the available
theory alone.
Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited
The winner, Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited, gives an excellent and
comprehensive view of its business model. A brief description is
included below:
1. The model takes into consideration all six capitals as inputs
in line with the International IR Framework. The elements
of each capital are also listed, e.g. natural capital consists of
physical locations, energy consumption, water consumption
and biodiversity. The key to the graphic states that“we create
value through the operation of quality assets in leading
locations in key markets and by investing in and building our
portfolio across a range of consumer segments”.
2. Alongside the inputs (the six capitals) the actual activities and
processes are shown. The business model is introduced as an
integrated model, explicitly stating: “Integration – An integrated
approach across the divisions’ results in leveraging the assets and
resources within the group under a unified management structure
with a common corporate identity.”
3. The two divisions, namely the Gaming Division and the
Hotel Division, are then outlined with a brief description
of each business, its key market differentiators and key
business processes. Arrows from the centre (displaying the
key support processes, such as Corporate, Finance, Internal
Audit, IT, Procurement, Marketing, etc.) point to the various
stakeholders, with page numbers included where these are
discussed in more detail). The model thus shows how the two
divisions are bound by common support processes, leading
to an integrated approach in terms of the business model.
A common line named“Governance”(with its page number
reference) cuts across the entire activities and processes block.
A further indication of the integrated approach is the key line
at the bottom of the graphic, containing common aspects
and the pages where they are to be found – cutting across the
whole picture from inputs to outputs and outcomes:
• Legislation and Regulations
• Economic Conditions
• Industry Sector
• External Environment
• Technology
• Consumer Preferences
• Societal Issues
• Environmental Challenges
4. The second last part of the business model contains the
outputs (detailing each of the two divisions as well) consisting
of“quality hospitality and leisure experiences relevant to our
customers at appropriate price points”and of“Environmental
and social impacts”. Again, each of these contains page number
references.
5. The final part of the business model contains the outcomes,
linked to strategic priorities:
• Deliver to our stakeholders, e.g. taxation and returns to
investors
• Financial strength and durability, e.g. prudent gearing levels
and adequate funding
• Product relevance to customer experience, e.g. customer
satisfaction
• Regulatory compliance, e.g. licence to trade
• Human resources, e.g. employee development and wellness
• Organic growth, e.g. profit and cash flow
• Inorganic growth, e.g. capacity increases
It is a well though-out, complete and fairly innovative model,
giving a holistic view of the business. From the page references
in the business model and from the way in which the index has
been developed, it is clear that the integrated report is structured
around the business model.
Whereas some integrated reports only included a business
model, sometimes isolated from the rest of the content, this
report contains an additional seven pages describing the
business model. The application of materiality is obvious where
the material risks and opportunities are described. This includes
heat maps regarding the risk scenarios.
It is concise and only 100 pages long (with summarised
consolidated AFS included).
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3 – QUALITATIVE INSIGHTS

32
Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited
Although this integrated annual report contains a business
model which is not unique, the impact of how it connected to
other sections makes this a very good example.
The business model is a fairly simple table broken down into the
six capitals as suggested in the International IR Framework.
Next to each, the inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes are
listed. It is introduced, however, as the pillars supporting the
strategy and the factors influencing the strategy.
The business model is followed by an overview of the business,
outlining the vision, mission and purpose, as well as giving
a brief history of the company. The group structure is then
shown graphically and this is followed by the employee value
proposition, as well as some project and performance figures.
An exceptional section details issues material to the business,
consisting of columns for the material issues, e.g.“Health and
wellness of our employees”. There is a descriptive paragraph on
why the issue is important. The next column contains a ranking
for the inherent risk of each issue, which is followed by the
focus in 2014 and what was achieved. This is followed by the
KPIs against which performance was measured. The last column
details the main stakeholders and their expectations.
An excellent piece of work was done in terms of risk
management, and the report discloses the journey from 2010. A
framework is created for enterprise risk management (ERM) – a
total of six pages is dedicated to risk management.
After this follows the assurance model and the strategic risk
profile.
The section ends with a reasonably detailed discussion of the key
risks, providing the ranking of residual risk and inherent risk since
2012.
Coming back to the business model and the capitals, over 100
pages of this 260 page-report discusses the performance against
each of the six capitals. This is excellent disclosure, and makes for
a remarkable report.
The 260 pages include the full set of AFS. Had the summary or
abridged AFS, but had been included, the report could have
been more concise.
ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited
Close to the third place achieved by Royal Bafokeng Platinum
Limited was ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited. The difference
between third and fourth place was less than one per cent.
Its business model is also very good and the report is a concise
106 pages long (including summarised AFS). The business model
covers all six capitals, but some of them are either input or output
capitals.
The business model is brought together in a integrated manner
in a two-page graphic of the sustainable business journey, which
includes the vision, mission and values, the key stakeholders, the
material issues, the KPIs, and the top 10 risks. Central to all this
are the strategic objectives of:
• Creating a high-performance culture
• Maintaining the licence to operate
• Protecting the health and safety of the people
• Driving profitability.
These four strategic objectives are then discussed in the next
two pages, as well as later on in the report where a chapter is
dedicated to achieving the objectives, covering another 24
pages. Most of the content elements are linked in the sustainable
business journey.
Nedbank Group Limited
The integration in the report is clear from the start as 95 pages of
the 200 A5 pages is grouped into three major sections:
• How we create value
• Delivering value to our stakeholders
• Ensuring sustainable value creation
The value-creating business model runs as a graphic (almost in
a table format) over two pages. It starts with all six capitals as
enablers, then follows the flow of money, and what Nedbank
does with that money in each part of the business. It then details
the businesses through which Nedbank provides products
and services, followed by the risks related to activities and the
relevant largest stakeholders. Good referencing to page numbers
and sections is done and some KPIs are also supplied.
The chief executive’s review is linked to the business environment
and key aspects of strategy, strategic focus areas and delivery of
value to stakeholders. The Chief Financial Officer’s (CFO) review
also focuses on the delivery of value through the Nedbank
businesses.
One of the most remarkable disclosures in the report is the
section on engaging with stakeholders. It covers a full 22 pages
of real value-adding information, covering all the significant parts
of stakeholder relationships.

CHAPTER 3
Liberty Holdings Limited
The report has used a logical approach to structure and
connectivity of content elements, and there is a strong focus
on key stakeholder partnerships that will assist the group in
creating sustainable value. The strategy highlights the strategic
risks and also how the strategy will impact the stakeholders in
the future. The Liberty business model is linked to risks and how
risk is mitigated through the combined assurance model, risk
appetite and governance structures, and there is excellent use of
infographics and icons to illustrate information (as an example,
icons have been used to connect material risks in the integrated
report to a full listing of risks in a separate report available on the
website).
The creation of value and sustainability is set to be the theme
of the report and is mentioned in most aspects throughout the
report. There is an excellent introduction by the Chairman and
the Chief Executive, setting the tone and direction of the report.
The use of logos and technology is very good – right at the
beginning of the report, a“readers guide”is provided, indicating
what is available online or in print and icons are used throughout
the report to assist readers in this respect. There is also good
connectivity between current performance and the 2015 targets,
as well as to the group’s long -term 2020 strategy. Also notable is
the performance review by stakeholders.
33
CHAPTER 3 – QUALITATIVE INSIGHTS
Business Model
• Oceana Group Limited
• Sanlam Limited
• Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited
• Royal Bafokeng Platinum
Limited
• Pretoria Portland Cement
Limited
Value Creation
• Barloworld Limited
• Liberty Holdings Limited
• Nedbank Group Limited
• Standard Bank Group Limited
• Woolworths Holdings Limited
Capitals
• Grindrod Limited
• Redefine Properties Limited
• Royal Bafokeng Platinum
Limited
• Santam Limited
• Sasol Limited
Stakeholder
Relationships
• Kumba Iron Ore Limited
• Liberty Holdings Limited
• Pretoria Portland Cement
Limited
• Telkom SA SOC Limited
• Gold Fields Limited
Below is a list of companies which have good examples displayed in their integrated reports relating to main concepts of International
IRFramework concepts.
Conclusion
We highly recommend readers to take a look at the reports mentioned in this chapter – they will provide clarity on many aspects
of the business model, capitals and value creation, as well as give tangible examples of what can be done to improve this aspect
of integrated reporting, which can be quite difficult to fully comprehend based on the available theory alone. However, it
must be stressed that listed companies wanting to move towards true integrated reporting must take time in deciding how to
comprehensively capture these elements – this will require thought and the input of both the board and the executive into this
process is highly recommended.
The Business Model, Capitals and Value Creation

Heading
34
NEW TRENDS IN INTEGRATED REPORTING IN SOUTH AFRICA
CHAPTER 4
Many of South Africa’s listed companies have prepared
integrated reports since 2010. The impetus was the King
Code of Governance for South Africa (King III) principle which
called for integrated reporting. The principles of King III were
included in the Listings Requirements of the JSE on an‘apply
or explain’basis. Now, six years later, integrated reporting
is common place in South Africa: the largest state-owned
companies prepare integrated reports, professional bodies
prepare reports, and non-governmental organisations prepare
reports. It is accepted that integrated reporting is better
reporting.
It is also increasingly accepted that integrated reporting is
a good management tool that helps to embed integrated
thinking in a company. Chief Executives of some listed
companies proudly say that integrated thinking is the way they
run their business, and there’s been friendly rivalry between
Chief Financial Officer’s as to how deeply integrated thinking is
embedded in their organisations.
This is not the case, however, with all organisations in South
Africa. Some of the listed companies – mostly those beyond
the top 40 largest companies – need to further improve their
reports and to heed the words of investors who would like to
see more evidence of integrated thinking.
There are a number of aspects that will work to shape the
integrated reports of South African companies in the next few
years.

35
The final version of the fourth King Code
of Governance for South Africa (King IV)
is expected in the second half of 2016.
This will mark the next major impetus to
integrated reporting in South Africa.
The Release of King IV
The next big impetus to integrated reporting in South Africa will
be the release of the fourth King Code of Governance for South
Africa (King IV). The public consultation draft of King IV will be
released in the next few months with the final version expected
in the second half of 2016.
There was wide consultation in developing the content of King
IV and some common themes emerged during the consultation
workshops. Themes such as integrated thinking, integrated
reporting, the role of the audit committee, strategy, and
integrated assurance. These themes could feature prominently in
King IV. Materiality could also feature in King IV as the reporting
of the material matters in the integrated report can give an
indication of how the board governs the company.
Relevant items that have been summarised in the King IV Progress
Report include the following (broadly stated):
• King IV should be more accessible to most types of entities,
including the public sector, NPOs and SMEs. Special attention
should also be given to pension funds and medical schemes.
• Be even more principles-based and less compliance-based.
• Greater focus on value creation and sustainability. Value
creation should embrace ethical behaviour, healthy stakeholder
relationships, and effective and efficient allocation of the
six capitals. The board should define what it means by value
creation.
• Further exploration and research into the current combined
assurance framework, which might become the integrated
assurance framework (and relevant policies). This should include
guidance for setting standards for the assurance of non-financial
information, as well as better guidance to determine materiality.
Further, material information should be defined and assured.
• Promotion of more face-to-face interaction with stakeholders,
including increased shareholder activism, and stakeholders
should be informing strategy.
• The creation and implementation of policies that drive risk-
based integrated thinking.
it should be noted that while many South African organisations
use the International IR Framework, the Integrated Reporting
Committee (IRC) of South Africa has endorsed it as guidance on
preparing an integrated report), they also refer to the principles
and recommendations of the current King III, released in
September 2009.
The chairman of the King Committee, Professor Mervyn King, is
also the chairman of the Council of the IIRC and the chairman of
the IRC of South Africa.
Assurance on the Integrated Reports
Directors or those charged with the governance of the
organisation have a responsibility for the integrity of the
integrated report. The International IR Framework calls for
a statement to this effect to be included in the report. This
responsibility, added to the call by some investors, is likely to
encourage the move to assurance on the integrated report.
Some key points have emerged from the international debate:
• Organisations use a range of mechanisms to enhance credibility
and trust, of which assurance is only one.
• Internal systems needed for integrated reporting are far less
mature than systems for financial information; they may often
be ad hoc and in some cases do not exist at all.
• Integrated reporting is relatively new and is still evolving;
assurance on integrated reporting will need to evolve alongside
the practice of reporting itself.
• Ongoing consultation will help ensure that assurance maintains
the focus on being market-led and delivering value for money.
• Innovation and experimentation is necessary, although
existing assurance principles and methodologies should not be
prematurely rejected.
• The total costs and benefits of assurance are difficult to assess,
however it is likely that assurance will become more cost
effective as time goes by.
• Assurance practitioners will need to develop a comprehensive
understanding of how value is created (for the organisation and
for others) across the full range of capitals. This will require an
appreciation of“systems thinking”.
• A range of technical challenges will need to be considered by
assurance standard-setters.
While South African companies wait for international guidance
or standards in this area, they will take note of what King IV says
about integrated assurance. The term integrated assurance could
encompass the blended efforts of internal assurance by the
organisation’s internal auditor together with the work of external
assurance providers.
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4 – NEW TRENDS IN INTEGRATED REPORTING

36
Integrated Thinking
In March 2015 the South African Institute of Chartered
Accountants (SAICA) released a publication Integrated Thinking:
An exploratory survey1
. The survey covered the views of executives
and non-executive directors of the biggest listed and state-
owned companies in South Africa. Their view on the benefits
of integrated thinking included improved decision-making
at board and management level resulting from the enhanced
information that had been made available. Further, they noted
that governance processes had improved, as had the risk
management process.
As more investors start to demand evidence of integrated
thinking in a company, it is likely that South African companies
will be at pains to show such evidence in their integrated reports.
Many of the top listed companies already refer to integrated
thinking in their reports and it is expected that they will include
considered information on integrated thinking in future reports
particularly in the governance element.
In the words of an investor2
: “Integrated thinking will help break
down silos, communicate your strategy across the organisation, and
help your people better understand the purpose of the company and
what they are expected to do to create and sustain value.”
Interestingly, the SAICA survey highlighted the challenges
experienced by companies in embedding integrated thinking.
These included overcoming a silo mentality and“protection of
turf”by employees, the need to improve the reliability of non-
financial information reporting systems to get them on a par with
financial systems, and inappropriate key performance indicators
and remuneration practices being used which were often set
primarily against financial targets1
.
Value Creation and Outcomes
The reporting of outcomes is an area that the IRC has recognised
as an area requiring improvement in South African reports. The
IRC commissioned its Working Group to develop an information
paper on outcomes and this is expected to be released in
December 2015.
A review of the reports of the largest companies shows that some
companies have confused outcomes with stakeholder value
(thereby excluding the outcomes on other capitals), while others
have stated outcomes as expenditure amounts rather than the
consequence on the capitals.
The release of the IRC paper will highlight this area and greater
attention is likely to be given to the disclosure of outcomes in the
future reports of South African companies. The measurement of
impacts and outcomes has not yet gained broad popularity in
South Africa, but there are some companies that have already
invested the time and resources and it is expected that others
will follow suit.
It is also increasingly accepted
that integrated reporting is a good
management tool that helps to embed
integrated thinking in a company. Chief
Executives of some listed companies
proudly say that integrated thinking
is the way they run their business, and
there’s been friendly rivalry between
Chief Financial Officers as to how deeply
integrated thinking is embedded in their
organisations.
1 South African Institute of Chartered Accountants, Integrated Thinking: An exploratory survey, 2015 www.integratedreportingsa.org
2David Couldridge, senior investment analyst at Element Investment Managers, as quoted in his article “Investors and Integrated Reporting in South Africa” appearing
in SAICA’s ASA magazine of November 2014.
South Africa has valuable experience in integrated reporting to share with others. Experience in what works and what doesn’t, the
ways to embed integrated thinking, the involvement of the board, the practical implementation steps, and more. Given the head
start that South African companies have had in integrated reporting, the emergence of new trends will be of interest to companies
in other parts of the world.

37
ANNEXURE A
ANNEXURE A – THE MARK PLAN, ADJUDICATION PROCESS AND THE PANEL
An important aspect of good corporate governance is to follow
best practice and this survey aims to support the continued effort
and improvement of integrated reporting by listed companies. It
also seeks to offer insights in order to provide guidance to others.
This year’s survey also forms a bridge from the old to the new,
with the same purpose of encouraging improved integrated
reports by all relevant companies over a period of time. The
companies that have not yet acted, should start immediately
or will simply be left behind, which would be an enormous
set-back in the progress shown to date in terms of disclosure to
shareholders and other stakeholders.
An additional 17 marks were allocated for the“Wow Factor”, for
those companies displaying innovative and uniqueness in their
integrated reports. The total is a score out of 200, which was then
converted to percentage scores to determine the ranking and
ratings of the Top 100. The integrated reports (annual reports) of
the listed companies in Annexure C were used in the survey.
THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS
The most recent reports were downloaded from the websites of
the companies in the beginning of 2015, which resulted in the
panel having access to reports with financial year-ends between
January 2014 and December 2014. The panel prepared a grading
sheet with weighting assigned to the respective guidelines of the
International IR Framework, as indicated above.
Three of the four panelists performed the initial ratings and
rankings. The companies which were rated in the top half the
previous year, were evaluated independently by at least two
of these three experts (the lower half were evaluated by one
expert only), while the fourth expert acted as an independent
adjudicator, who also graded a representative sample of the
reports, including those of the best-rated companies. The scores
were then further analysed and re-marked where necessary.
Finally, the results were used to determine the ratings and
rankings for the companies.
It must be stated that none of the companies surveyed entered
a competition or submitted data to the panel and none had
The mark plan covered the following indicators of the Framework:
THE MARK PLAN
TOTAL: 200 marks
Strategic
Focus
17 17 17 17 17 17 1717 32 32
Connectivity
of
Information
Stakeholder
Relationships
Materiality
Conciseness
Reliabilityand
Completeness
Consistency
and
Comparibility
Fundamental
Concepts
Content
Elements
Strategic
FocusThe
WowFactor
Guide to the Ratings
0 20 40 60 80 100
80% – 100%
70% – 79%
60% – 69%
50% – 59%
0 – 49%
A
B
C
D
D

38
any knowledge of this evaluation process. In the spirit of true
transparency the idea is to evaluate/survey/judge the information
available to any citizen in the world (either via Internet access or
via access to printed reports from registrars). Therefore, in the data
collection process, the panel used all annual reports, integrated
reports and sustainability reports openly available on the Internet.
The scores are, however, based on the single main integrated
report or annual report of each company.
Integrated reporting by itself had a scoring of 97/195 in 2013
(2012:70/150), which was 50% (2012:47%, 2011:35%) of the score.
The rest of the marks were allocated for compliance to King
III, some JSE requirements, and the use of GRI Guidelines and
the application of the International IR Framework. Integrated
reporting now accounts for 100% of the marks, based solely on
the International IR Framework.
THE PANEL
Nkonki appointed an independent panel of experts to conduct the research. The panel consisted of the following scholars affiliated with
Monash South Africa (hereinafter“MSA”), a campus of Monash University, Australia:
1. Prof Anton du Toit, CA(SA), BA, B Compt, Hons B Compt, CTA, M Com, M.Inst.D., RA, is a corporate governance expert and director of
companies. He was the Director of Accountancy Studies at MSA (Monash South Africa), accredited with SAICA as a service provider
for CTA, from 2006 to 2014. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Zululand. He held the position of Professor in Accounting
at both the University of Johannesburg and North-West University for a total of 19 years, during which time he served on the senates
of both universities. He is an accomplished computer auditor with research interests in business ethics, corporate governance and
sustainability. Anton presented various seminars and conferences, both internationally and locally, on auditing concepts. He has
evaluated numerous articles in accredited journals, and is a founding presenter of the newly-established Postgraduate Diploma in
Management specialising in Corporate Governance at MSA.
Anton is on early retirement due to health reasons (paraplegic: limited mobility), but still consults privately and lectures part-
time at MSA. He also serves on the Audit Committees of ICASA, Spectramed Medical Aid, the Tswane University of Technology (TUT),
Tlokwe City Council, Capricorn District Municipality and Aganang Municipality.
He is a non-executive director of NG Welfare (NG Welsyn) and chairman of the Audit Committee. He served as member of the Audit
Committee of the Gauteng Provincial Government. He serves on the Boards of three companies. He serves on various committees
and interest groups in the profession. He is a past alternate Board member of the Independent Regulatory Board of Auditors; past
President of the Southern African Accounting Association; past Vice-President of the International Association for Accounting
Education and Research; and past editor of Meditari, the accredited professional journal of accountancy.
Anton has been involved in audit and advisory services for many clients and in association with a variety of big audit firms. The largest
clients include Workforce, Basil Read, Atlas Finance, IOM, SEW, International SOS and Rand Mutual Assurance. Previous clients include
Afrox, Honda SA, BP, the JSE, Sappi, Mondi, South-West Coop, AGN of ABSA and Sanlam.
2. Blanche Steyn, B Com, B Compt (Honours), M Com, CA(SA), ACMA, CGMA, CISA and CIA. She focuses on research in accountancy
education and governance. She has been an academic for more than 20 years and is currently a senior lecturer at MSA and the
auditing subject leader responsible for teaching auditing at a third year level. She has presented various conferences, symposiums
and workshops on auditing and related topics internationally and locally. Blanche is the author of various articles on governance,
accountancy education, internal and computer auditing for professional magazines and academic journals. She is an adjudicator for
three academic journals and the chairperson of the Johannesburg region of the South African Accounting Association. She was also a
founding presenter of the newly-established Postgraduate Diploma in Management specialising in Corporate Governance at MSA.
3. Adrian Pilley – BCompt, BCompt (Honours) MCom, CA(SA) RA. Adrian has been lecturing taxation for seven years at Monash at
third-year level and financial accounting for the last four years. Prior to lecturing, Adrian enjoyed a successful career in commerce and
Industry Sector for over 15 years. His research interests are in the field of integrated reporting.
4. Rufaro Gweshe – LLB, LLM (UCT). Rufaro has been a part of academia since 2008. She has been lecturing business law for the past five
years and has lectured students ranging from first to final year at MSA since 2013. Her research interests lie generally within the field
of company law, and specifically in business rescue. Rufaro’s two publications and two conference papers lie within the fields of public
and commercial law. She is also the former editorial assistant for the South African Journal of Criminal Justice.

39
ANNEXURE B
ANNEXURE B – RATINGS AND RANKINGS BY INDUSTRY
Ranking
2014
Company
Name
Industry
Year-end
Rankingin
Top1002013
Awards
Rankingin
Top1002012
Awards
Rankingin
Top1002011
Awards
Ratings
1
Tsogo Sun Holdings
Limited
Consumer Services 31-Mar-14
A (80-
100%)
2
Royal Bafokeng Platinum
Limited
Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 12 28 A
3
ArcelorMittal South Africa
Limited
Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 9 93 80 A
4 Nedbank Group Limited Financials 31-Dec-14 4 4 5 A
5 Liberty Holdings Limited Financials 31-Dec-14 34 36 51 A
6 Nampak Limited Industrials 30-Sep-14 44 15 34 A
7
Redefine Properties
Limited
Financials 31-Aug-14 43 62 53 A
8
Pretoria Portland Cement
Limited
Industrials 30-Sep-14 5 1 2 A
9 Sanlam Limited Financials 31-Dec-14 13 16 6 A
10 Sasol Limited Oil Gas 30-Jun-14 3 8 17 A
11 Barloworld Limited Industrials 30-Sep-14 7 9 3 A
12
Anglo American Platinum
Limited
Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 6 41 21 A
13
Life Healthcare Group
Holdings Limited
Healthcare 30-Sep-14 41 54 26 A
14
Wilson Bayly Holmes-
Ovcon
Industrials 30-Jun-14 105 84 73 A
15 Gold Fields Limited Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 21 25 11 A
16 Exxaro Resources Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 1 3 22
B (70-
79%)
*This list contains Top 100 Companies and those listed on the JSE SRI index only.

40
Ranking
2014
Company
Name
Industry
Year-end
Ranking
inTop100
2013Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2012Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2011Awards
Ratings
17 Kumba Iron Ore Limited Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 16 5 24 B
18 Tongaat Hulett Limited Consumer Goods 31-Mar-14 25 17 19 B
19
Northam Platinum
Limited
Basic Materials 30-Jun-14 59 31 60 B
20 Santam Limited Financials 31-Dec-14 46 55 69 B
21 Woolworths Holdings Consumer Services 29-Jun-14 14 6 1 B
22 Anglo American PLC Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 71 73 78 B
23 Grindrod Limited Industrials 31-Dec-14 18 7 44 B
24 Mpact Ltd Industrials 31-Dec-14 - - - B
25 Oceana Group Limited Consumer Goods 30-Sep-14 67 74 70 B
26 Sappi Limited Basic Materials 30-Sep-14 31 40 41 B
27 AECI Limited Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 23 34 50 B
28 Aveng Group Limited Industrials 30-Jun-14 30 21 12 B
29
AngloGold Ashanti
Limited
Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 8 27 25 B
30 Sibanye Gold Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 - - - B
31 Vodacom Group Telecommunications 31-Mar-14 33 14 9 B
32
The Foschini Group
Limited
Consumer Services 31-Mar-14 47 33 16 B
33
Truworths International
Limited
Consumer Services 29-Jun-14 28 13 35 B

41
ANNEXURE BRanking
2014
Company
Name
Industry
Year-end
Ranking
inTop100
2013Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2012Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2011Awards
Ratings
34 African Oxygen Limited Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 62 86 90 B
35
Hyprop Investments
Limited
Financials 31-Dec-14 92 85 91 B
36
Mondi Limited and Mondi
PLC
Basic Materials 31-Dec-14 39 37 23 B
37
Standard Bank Group
Limited
38
Barclays Africa Group
Limited
39 Sun International Limited Consumer Services 30-Jun-14 20 24 10 B
40
Murray Roberts
Holdings
Industrials 30-Jun-14 19 39 45 B
41 Telkom SA SOC Telecommunications 31-Mar-14 45 18 B
42
Aspen Pharmacare
Holdings Limited
Healthcare 30-Jun-14 27 11 4
C (60-
69%)
43
Mediclinic International
Limited
Healthcare 31-Mar-14 11 47 63 C
44
Steinhoff International
Holdings Limited
Consumer Goods 30-Jun-14 50 32 56 C
45
Harmony Gold Mining
Company Limited
Basic Materials 30-Jun-14 10 19 7 C
46 Illovo Sugar Limited Consumer Goods 31-Mar-14 22 59 75 C
47
BHP Billiton Limited and
PLC
48 Imperial Holdings Limited Industrials 30-Jun-14 45 38 59 C
49 JD Group Limited Consumer Services 30-Jun-14 55 10 8 C
50 Old Mutual PLC Financials 31-Dec-14 87 80 76 C

42
Ranking
2014
Company
Name
Industry
Year-end
Ranking
inTop100
2013Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2012Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2011Awards
Ratings
51 Lonmin PLC Basic Materials 30-Sep-14 61 61 48 C
52 Bidvest Group Limited Industrials 30-Jun-14 77 49 84 C
53 Capital Property Fund Financials 31-Dec-14 98 100 99 C
54 Mr Price Group Limited Consumer Services 29-Mar-14 57 70 64 C
55
Pioneer Food Group
Limited
Consumer Goods 30-Sep-14 73 56 55 C
56
African Rainbow Minerals
Limited
57
Allied Electronics
Corporation (Altron)
Industrials 20-Feb-14 26 18 37 C
58
Business Connexion
Group Limited
Technology 31-Aug-14 82 82 40 C
59 Investec Ltd and PLC Financials 31-Mar-14 29 30 14 C
60 Omnia Holdings Limited Basic Materials 31-Mar-14 72 78 - C
61 Reunert Limited Industrials 30-Sep-14 69 77 68 C
62
Impala Platinum Holdings
Limited
Basic Materials 30-Jun-14 24 26 65
D (50-
59%)
63
Coronation Fund
Managers Limited
Financials 30-Sep-14 64 60 79 D
64 Intu Properties plc Financials 31-Dec-14 95 87 93 D
65 SABMiller PLC Consumer Goods 31-Mar-14 74 63 61 D
66 MMI Holdings Limited Financials 30-Jun-14 53 95 81 D
67 Brait SE Financials 31-Mar-14 104 102 D

43
ANNEXURE B
Ranking
2014
Company
Name
Industry
Year-end
Ranking
inTop100
2013Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2012Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2011Awards
Ratings
68 Famous Brands Limited Consumer Services 28-Feb-14 101 D
69 FirstRand Limited Financials 30-Jun-14 35 35 38 D
70 JSE Limited Financials 31-Dec-14 56 83 71 D
71 Adv Tech Limited Financials 31-Dec-14 96 98 86 D
72
British American Tobacco
PLC
Consumer Goods 31-Dec-14 75 46 D
73
Capitec Bank Holdings
Limited
Financials 28-Feb-14 66 90 58 D
74 KAP Industrial Holdings Industrials 30-Jun-14 89 - - D
75 Clicks Group Limited Consumer Services 31-Aug-14 48 42 27 D
76
Massmart Holdings
Limited
Consumer Services 28-Dec-14 36 92 31 D
77 RMB Holdings Limited Financials 30-Jun-14 91 91 77 D
78 Tiger Brands Limited Consumer Goods 30-Sep-14 80 72 72 D
79
Discovery Holdings
Limited
Financials 30-Jun-14 51 29 33
E (40-
49%)
80
Growthpoint Prop
Limited
Financials 30-Jun-14 76 64 36 E
81 Naspers Limited Consumer Services 31-Mar-14 52 23 15 E
82 Netcare Limited Healthcare 30-Sep-14 79 71 52 E
83 RCL Foods Limited Consumer Goods 30-Jun-14 68 51 32 E
84 The Spar Group Limited Consumer Services 30-Sep-14 54 75 62 E
85 EOH Holdings Ltd. Technology 31-Jul-14 E

44
Ranking
2014
Company
Name
Industry
Year-end
Ranking
inTop100
2013Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2012Awards
Ranking
inTop100
2011Awards
Ratings
86
Capital Counties
Properties PLC
Financials 31-Dec-14 97 94 E
87 Pick N Pay Stores Limited Consumer Services 02-Mar-14 83 52 67 E
88
Redefine International
PLC
Financials 31-Aug-14 E
89 Assore Ltd Basic Materials 30-Jun-14 85 67 42 E
90 Invicta Holdings Industrials 31-Mar-14 E
91
Resilient Property Income
Fund
Financials 30-Jun-14 99 97 100 E
92 AVI Limited Consumer Goods 30-Jun-14 93 79 83 E
93 Datatec Limited Technology 28-Feb-14 60 53 43 E
94 Remgro Limited Industrials 30-Jun-14 58 65 49 E
95 Lewis Group Limited Consumer Services 31-Mar-14 70 50 47 E
96
Rand Merchant Insurance
Holdings Limited
Financials 30-Jun-14 84 96 E
97 Trencor Limited Industrials 31-Dec-14 100 104 E
98 Attacq Limited Financials 30-Jun-14
F (30-
39%)
99
Adcock Ingram Holdings
Limited
Healthcare 30-Sep-14 65 88 54 F
100
Hosken Consolidated
Investments Limited
Financials 31-Mar-14 86 99 95 F
101
New Europe Property
Investments PLC
Financials 31-Dec-14 103 F
102 Reinet Investments SCA Financials 31-Mar-14 107 107 101 F
103 PSG Group Financials 28-Feb-14 103 96 F
104
Compagnie Financiere
Richemont AG
Consumer Goods 31-Mar-14 106 106 97 F
105
Shoprite Holdings
Limited
Consumer Services 30-Jun-14 63 76 87 F

45
ANNEXURE B
Basic Materials:
Consumer Goods:
Ranking 2014 Company Name Sector Year-end Rating
1 Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 A (80-100%)
2 ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 A
3 Anglo American Platinum Limited Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 A
4 Gold Fields Limited Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 A
5 Exxaro Resources Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 B (70-79%)
6 Kumba Iron Ore Limited Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 B
7 Northam Platinum Limited Basic Resources 30-Jun-14 B
8 Anglo American PLC Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 B
9 Sappi Limited Basic Resources 30-Sep-14 B
10 AECI Limited Chemicals 31-Dec-14 B
11 AngloGold Ashanti Limited Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 B
12 Sibanye Gold Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 B
13 African Oxygen Limited Chemicals 31-Dec-14 B
14 Mondi Limited and Mondi PLC Basic Resources 31-Dec-14 B
15 Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd Basic Resources 30-Jun-14 C (60-69%)
16 BHP Billiton Limited and PLC Basic Resources 30-Jun-14 C
17 Lonmin PLC Basic Resources 30-Sep-14 C
18 African Rainbow Minerals Limited Basic Resources 30-Jun-14 C
19 Omnia Holdings Limited Chemicals 31-Mar-14 C
20 Impala Platinum Holdings Limited Basic Resources 30-Jun-14 D (50-59%)
21 Assore Ltd Basic Resources 30-Jun-14 E (40-49%)
1 Tongaat Hulett Limited Food beverages 31-Mar-14 B (70-79%)
2 Oceana Group Limited Food beverages 30-Sep-14 B
3 Steinhoff International Holdings Limited Personal Household Goods 30-Jun-14 C (60-69%)
4 Illovo Sugar Limited Food beverages 31-Mar-14 C
5 Pioneer Food Group Limited Food beverages 30-Sep-14 C
6 SABMiller PLC Food beverages 31-Mar-14 D (50-59%)

46
Consumer Goods:
Consumer Services:
7 British American Tobacco PLC Personal Household Goods 31-Dec-14 D
8 Tiger Brands Limited Food beverages 30-Sep-14 D
9 RCL Foods Limited Food beverages 30-Jun-14 E (40-49%)
10 AVI Limited Food beverages 30-Jun-14 E
11 Compagnie Financiere Richemont AG Personal Household Goods 31-Mar-14 F (30-39%)
1 Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited Travel Leisure 31-Mar-14 A (80-100%)
2 Woolworths Holdings Retail 29-Jun-14 B (70-79%)
3 The Foschini Group Limited Retail 31-Mar-14 B
4 Truworths International Limited Retail 29-Jun-14 B
5 Sun International Limited Travel Leisure 30-Jun-14 B
6 JD Group Limited Retail 30-Jun-14 C (60-69%)
7 Mr Price Group Limited Retail 29-Mar-14 C
8 Famous Brands Limited Travel Leisure 28-Feb-14 D (50-59%)
9 AdvTech Limited Retail 31-Dec-14 D
10 Clicks Group Limited Retail 31-Aug-14 D
11 Massmart Holdings Limited Retail 28-Dec-14 D
12 Naspers Limited Media 31-Mar-14 E (40-49%)
13 The Spar Group Limited Retail 30-Sep-14 E
14 Pick N Pay Stores Limited Retail 02-Mar-14 E
15 Lewis Group Limited Retail 31-Mar-14
16 Shoprite Holdings Limited Retail 30-Jun-14 F (30-39%)
Healthcare:
1 Life Healthcare Group Holdings Limited Healthcare 30-Sep-14 A (80-100%)
2 Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Limited Healthcare 30-Jun-14 C (60-69%)
3 Mediclinic International Limited Healthcare 31-Mar-14 C
4 Netcare Limited Healthcare 30-Sep-14 E (40-49%)
5 Adcock Ingram Holdings Limited Healthcare 30-Sep-14 F (30-39%)

47
ANNEXURE B
ANNEXURE B – RATINGS AND RANKINGS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR
Financials:
1 Nedbank Group Limited Banks 31-Dec-14 A (80-100%)
2 Liberty Holdings Limited Insurance 31-Dec-14 A
3 Redefine Properties Limited Real Estate 31-Aug-14 A
4 Sanlam Limited Insurance 31-Dec-14 A
5 Santam Limited Insurance 31-Dec-14 B (70-79%)
6 Hyprop Investments Limited Real Estate 31-Dec-14 B
7 Standard Bank Group Limited Banks 31-Dec-14 B
8 Barclays Africa Group Limited Banks 31-Dec-14 B
9 Old Mutual PLC Insurance 31-Dec-14 C (60-69%)
10 Capital Property Fund Real Estate 31-Dec-14 C
11 Investec Ltd PLC Financial Services 31-Mar-14 C
12 Coronation Fund Managers Limited Financial Services 30-Sep-14 D (50-59%)
13 Intu Properties plc Real Estate 31-Dec-14 D
14 MMI Holdings Limited Insurance 30-Jun-14 D
15 Brait SE Financial Services 31-Mar-14 D
16 FirstRand Limited Banks 30-Jun-14 D
17 JSE Limited Financial Services 31-Dec-14 D
18 Capitec Bank Holdings Limited Banks 28-Feb-14 D
19 RMB Holdings Limited Banks 30-Jun-14 D
20 Discovery Holdings Limited Insurance 30-Jun-14 E (40-49%)
21 Growthpoint Prop Limited Real Estate 30-Jun-14 E
22 Capital Counties Properties PLC Real Estate 31-Dec-14 E
23 Redefine International PLC Real Estate 31-Aug-14 E
24 Resilient Property Income Fund Real Estate 30-Jun-14 E
25 Rand Merchant Insurance Holdings Limited Investment Instruments 30-Jun-14 E
26 Attacq Limited Real Estate 30-Jun-14 F (30-39%)
27 Hosken Consolidated Investments Ltd Investment Instruments 31-Mar-14 F
28 New Europe Property Investments PLC Real Estate 31-Dec-14 F
29 Reinet Investments SCA Investment Instruments 31-Mar-14 F
30 PSG Group Financial Services 28-Feb-14 F

48
Industrials:
Oil Gas:
Technology:
1 Nampak Limited Industrial Goods Services 30-Sep-14 A (80-100%)
2 Pretoria Portland Cement Limited Construction Materials 30-Sep-14 A
3 Barloworld Limited Industrial Goods Services 30-Sep-14 A
4 Wilson Bayly Holmes-Ovcon Construction Materials 30-Jun-14 A
5 Grindrod Limited Industrial Goods Services 31-Dec-14 B (70-79%)
6 Mpact Ltd Industrial Goods Services 31-Dec-14 B
7 Aveng Group Limited Construction Materials 30-Jun-14 B
8 Murray Roberts Holdings Construction Materials 30-Jun-14 B
9 Imperial Holdings Limited Industrial Goods Services 30-Jun-14 C (60-69%)
10 Bidvest Group Limited Industrial Goods Services 30-Jun-14 C
11
Allied Electronics Corporation Limited
(Altron)
Industrial Goods Services 28-Feb-14 C
12 Reunert Limited Industrial Goods Services 30-Sep-14 C
13 KAP Industrial Holdings Industrial Goods Services 30-Jun-14 D(50-59%)
14 Invicta Holdings Industrial Goods Services 31-Mar-14 E (40-49%)
15 Remgro Limited Industrial Goods Services 30-Jun-14 E
16 Trencor Limited Industrial Goods Services 31-Dec-14 E
1 Sasol Limited Oil Gas 30-Jun-14 A (80-100%)
1 Business Connexion Group Limited Technology 31-Aug-14 C (60-69%)
2 EOH Holdings Ltd Technology 31-Jul-14 E (40-49%)
3 Datatec Limited Technology 28-Feb-14 E
Telecommunications:
1 Vodacom Group Telecommunications 31-Mar-14 B (70-79%)
2 Telkom SA SOC Telecommunications 31-Mar-14 B

49
ANNEXURE C – MATURITY CHART
ANNEXURE C
The maturity levels have been derived from the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition©
INTEGRATED REPORTING MATURITY LEVELS
• The board decides to start the
integrated reporting journey and
produce its first report
• There is board and executive
awareness training on integrated
reporting, integrated thinking, the
International IR Framework and
other relevant regulations
• The board articulates, guided by the
International IR Framework, the
business model, the capitals used
or affected by the organisation’s
activities, and the key stakeholders
• The board sets strategic objectives
over the short, medium and long term
after considering the capitals used or
affected, the risks and opportunities,
and sets KPIs and targets
• The executives are tasked with setting
up systems for internal reporting
for the non-financial KPIs, and for
stakeholder engagement and the
organisation’s responsiveness
• The first integrated report tells, at
least, the business model, strategic
objectives, key stakeholders, and risks
and opportunities noting when other
information will be available
• The board understands the need for
integrated thinking and actively seeks
to include consideration of the capitals
used or affected in its decision-making
• The remuneration policy reflects
incentives to achieve the short,
medium and long term strategic
objectives
• The executive in charge of the
integrated report leads a multi-
divisional steering committee that
develops and monitors the project
plan for the report
• The material matters are approved by
the board together with the process of
determining them
• The internal reporting system spews
out reliable non-financial performance
information
• There is internal and external
assurance of the strategic objectives’
KPIs on the realisation that these are
core to the business
• Integrated thinking is embedded at board
and executive levels with decision-making
that includes the capitals used or affected
• The integrated report contains truly
connected information
• The governance element of the integrated
report has been fine tuned to reflect
information that relates to the value
creation process of the organisation
• There is greater understanding of
outcomes (consequences on the capitals)
with a move to seek quantitative
information in addition to qualitative
information
• The integrated report is more concise
than in previous years on the better
understanding of the material matters
process and greater comfort in housing
detailed information on the website and/
or in supplementary reports
Novice Company Advanced Beginner Competent Role Player
1 2 3

50
• There is a standing board agenda item on the
quality of the organisation’s relationships with its key
stakeholders and the material matters
• Remuneration incentives throughout the organisation
are linked to the strategic objectives’KPIs for the short,
medium and long term
• The integrated report is easily and quickly compiled at
year-end as a seamless extension of internal integrated
reporting and embedded integrated thinking
• Key stakeholders are fully aware that the integrated
report holds strategic, material and forward-
looking information and that they can find detailed
information on the website
• Internal audit assures elements of the integrated
report with other key elements being assured by
external parties
• Integrated thinking is fully embedded at board,
executive and staff levels
• The executives acknowledge that integrated thinking
is the way they run the business
• The strategic objectives and the importance of the
capitals used or affected are understood by all in the
organisation
• There is external assurance on the whole integrated
report
• The integrated report is looked forward to by the
organisation’s key stakeholders
• The organisation is, and is seen to be, a good
corporate citizen with excellent corporate reporting
The Company is Proficient in
Integrated Reporting
Integrated Reporting Expert
Company
4 5

51
1. The project plan
3. Structure of the
integrated report
6. Writing the report
4. Assurance needs
5. Material matters
2. Octopus model
ANNEXURE D
The high level roadmap to your integrated report
ANNEXURE D – THE HIGH LEVEL ROADMAP
7. Approval

151003 JSE Nkonki Top 100 report email version

151003 JSE Nkonki Top 100 report email version

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 151003 JSE Nkonki Top 100 report email version

Similar to 151003 JSE Nkonki Top 100 report email version (20)

151003 JSE Nkonki Top 100 report email version