Metair Investments Ltd – Lobbying Governance & Transparency

Sign up to access all our data and the evidence and analysis underlying our overall scores. Once you've created an account, we'll get in touch with further details:

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Metair discloses a structured process to keep its policy engagement consistent with its climate objectives, but the disclosures stop short of showing a detailed, public audit of either its own advocacy positions or those of the industry bodies through which it lobbies. The company states that “any engagement on climate-related issues must be aligned with the Social and Ethics Framework” and that “the Social and Ethics Committee is responsible for ensuring that there is consistency between what is communicated to stakeholders and Metair’s strategy, into which climate change is integrated.” This committee, comprising independent non-executive directors, reviews quarterly reports that include “a social and ethics register that reports compliance and non-compliance… risks and opportunities,” and it “identifies any risks with regards to misalignment between engagement activities and the group strategy” and raises them with the relevant subsidiary. The disclosures also name clear oversight bodies: the Social & Ethics Committee “oversee[s] Metair’s strategy and governance on sustainability, including climate-related risks and opportunities,” while the board retains ultimate responsibility for stakeholder engagement, signalling identifiable governance ownership. The company acknowledges indirect channels, noting that “we engaged with government through industry bodies,” and it has made “a public commitment… to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” However, we found no evidence of a systematic assessment or public disclosure of how individual trade associations’ climate lobbying positions compare with Metair’s, nor any example of the company correcting or exiting misaligned bodies, and no dedicated climate-lobbying report or third-party review is referenced. As such, the company demonstrates a moderate level of lobbying governance: clear policies, reporting lines and review mechanisms are in place, but detailed monitoring of both direct and indirect climate lobbying alignment and disclosure of outcomes are not publicly described. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Metair discloses a structured process to keep its policy engagement consistent with its climate objectives, but the disclosures stop short of showing a detailed, public audit of either its own advocacy positions or those of the industry bodies through which it lobbies. The company states that “any engagement on climate-related issues must be aligned with the Social and Ethics Framework” and that “the Social and Ethics Committee is responsible for ensuring that there is consistency between what is communicated to stakeholders and Metair’s strategy, into which climate change is integrated.” This committee, comprising independent non-executive directors, reviews quarterly reports that include “a social and ethics register that reports compliance and non-compliance… risks and opportunities,” and it “identifies any risks with regards to misalignment between engagement activities and the group strategy” and raises them with the relevant subsidiary. The disclosures also name clear oversight bodies: the Social & Ethics Committee “oversee[s] Metair’s strategy and governance on sustainability, including climate-related risks and opportunities,” while the board retains ultimate responsibility for stakeholder engagement, signalling identifiable governance ownership. The company acknowledges indirect channels, noting that “we engaged with government through industry bodies,” and it has made “a public commitment… to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” However, we found no evidence of a systematic assessment or public disclosure of how individual trade associations’ climate lobbying positions compare with Metair’s, nor any example of the company correcting or exiting misaligned bodies, and no dedicated climate-lobbying report or third-party review is referenced. As such, the company demonstrates a moderate level of lobbying governance: clear policies, reporting lines and review mechanisms are in place, but detailed monitoring of both direct and indirect climate lobbying alignment and disclosure of outcomes are not publicly described.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Metair Investments offers a moderate level of insight into its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies one concrete policy focus—the South African Carbon Tax—stating this explicitly as “the South African carbon tax,” but does not indicate whether it engages on any other climate measures. The company is clearer about how it seeks to influence the issue, noting that it acts “directly by submitting carbon tax accounts for those entities that are identified as carbon taxpayers” and indirectly “through the National Association of Automotive Component and Allied Manufacturers (NAACAM), which has expressed its concern regarding the introduction of the South African carbon tax,” and it specifies that these efforts are aimed at “government.” Metair is most explicit about the outcomes it pursues: it warns that “the introduction of the carbon tax may negatively impact on the competitiveness of our operations in South Africa” and therefore proposes that government prioritise “the development of alternatives to fossil fuels,” including “creating an electricity grid that consists of predominantly renewable energy, encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles and developing a green hydrogen economy.” By spelling out several preferred policy alternatives and its opposition to the current tax design, the company provides clarity on desired legislative changes, even though it discloses only one policy area and a limited set of engagement mechanisms.	C