Акционеры IDC и PIC должны заставить Sasol перейти к справедливой декарбонизации

When a company is responsible for about 10% of South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions its environmental impact is a matter of public concern. As two of global integrated energy and chemical company Sasol’s largest shareholders, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) have the influence and the responsibility to ensure the company delivers a credible, just and accountable transition. The question is whether they will use that power. Sasol is one of the world’s largest point sources of greenhouse gas emissions and a big contributor to air pollution in Mpumalanga and the Vaal. At its 2025 AGM, the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) challenged Sasol’s emissions reduction strategy and decarbonisation roadmap, arguing that its climate commitments are undermined by continued reliance on coal and gas, requests for leniency on sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions and insufficient transparency regarding the health impacts of its operations. The CER and other organisations have also scrutinised Sasol’s promotion of gas as a transition fuel, the potential financial risks of future gas investments, and the effectiveness of its reported community health programmes. Sasol’s pollution is not just a line item in an environmental, social and governance presentation; it is a national economic, environmental and political fact. And because two of Sasol’s most powerful shareholders are public institutions, it is not merely a matter of investor preference. It is a test of whether public capital in South Africa will be used to defend the status quo or force a cleaner, fairer industrial future. The numbers explain why the IDC and PIC matter. Sasol’s 2024 annual financial statements show the PIC managing 91,280,458 shares, equal to 14.08% of the total issued securities, and the IDC holding 53,266,887 shares, or 8.21%. Together they represent a formidable bloc in the register. If they vote with discipline, co-ordinate with other institutional investors and use engagement seriously, they could shape Sasol’s board, its incentives and the terms on which its transition is judged. At Sasol’s 2019 AGM more than 25% of shareholders voted against the implementation of its remuneration policy and the company was forced to engage investors on the reasons for their dissent. That is how corporate power works in the real world: not through dramatic speeches but through votes, pressure and consequences. If the IDC and PIC can use their shares to challenge pay they can use them to challenge pollution, delay and vague promises dressed up as transition strategy. The world and South Africa are in a looming climate crisis, and vague promises are exactly what the country can no longer afford. Sasol says it aims to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. It says “Future Sasol” will transform Secunda and Sasolburg, and that it is investing in renewables, efficiency and lower-carbon pathways. All of that sounds reassuring until one asks the obvious question: who is making sure these commitments are real, fast enough and not overly reliant on offsets, certificates and wishful accounting? The urgency is not only about climate. It is also about the people living with dirty air now. Sasol’s air quality disclosures describe offset programmes, household interventions, particulate-matter reductions and boiler retrofits. Some of these measures are worthwhile. But they exist in the shadow of the highveld’s far bigger reality: a region where environmental justice organisations took the government to court over deadly air pollution and won a landmark judgment affirming the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being. It is not enough to applaud Sasol for managing the optics of pollution while communities continue to bear the health burden of industrial emissions. A serious intervention by the IDC and PIC would focus on two things at once: environmental performance and the just transition. Sasol’s own just-transition language admits that decarbonisation could harm workers, communities and suppliers unless deliberate measures are taken. Good. The IDC and PIC should insist that this be converted from rhetoric into an enforceable expectation. They should demand clear targets for worker reskilling, supplier diversification, community investment and local job creation in new green industries. They should push for executive pay to depend not only on financial performance, but also on measurable progress in emissions reduction, air quality compliance and social transition planning. It is not enough to applaud Sasol for managing the optics of pollution while communities continue to bear the health burden of industrial emissions. A serious intervention by the IDC and PIC would focus on two things at once: environmental performance and the just transition. The IDC has a special responsibility because it is more than a shareholder. Sasol’s own history reveals how the South African government financed Sasol through the IDC, and now the two institutions are collaborating on hydrogen and industrial transition opportunities. This gives the IDC leverage beyond the ballot paper: it can shape whether development finance becomes a reward for slow adaptation or a lever for faster change. Meanwhile, the PIC cannot hide behind passive stewardship. It manages public workers’ savings. Those pensioners have an interest not only in returns, but in whether the economy they retire into is cleaner, more stable and less unequal. Public money should not bankroll environmental drift. The real question is simple: what are the IDC and PIC prepared to accept? If they continue to treat Sasol’s environmental harms as unfortunate externalities and its just transition promises as aspirational branding, they are not stewards of the public interest; they are accomplices in delay. But if they use their shares the way serious owners should — voting hard, demanding disclosure, linking pay to delivery and refusing to fund an unjust transition — they could help force one of South Africa’s most important companies onto a path that is cleaner, fairer and more credible. Sasol will not change because it is politely asked to. It will change when its most powerful shareholders decide the cost of inaction is finally too high — for the company, for its communities and for the country. • Mphake is a researcher, and Mugunyani head of the mining programme, at the Centre for Environmental Rights. Business Day