Planet A Investment Guide

This is our tentative practical guide to fossil fuel divestment, green-ish and socially responsible investment in SA. This version is the updated edition, February 2021. If you want to read the most up-to-date version, please see the Google doc version here.

Introduction and purpose

This guide is an imperfect and incomplete answer to a question we are often asked: How do we as South Africans divest from the fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil) that are breaking our climate? (Why ‘Planet A’ Investment? Because, ‘There is no Planet B.’)

It’s an effort to list socially responsible and sort-of socially responsible investments available to South African retail investors, especially those leaning towards ecologically sustainable or low-carbon investments. We hope to assist those who want ways to invest that support human rights and an ecologically intact planet, particularly in respect of climate change. Climate is our overarching campaign concern, but we hope that it will be a wedge issue for other vital ethical investment issues, such as those listed in Appendix 1.

We look forward to the day when we can list not just one, but several, convincingly ethical, fossil-free and/or low-carbon investments here.

We have long been in discussion with at least three different financial service providers about creating fossil-free, ethical funds, but after a few embarrassingly premature announcements of progress, will not talk more about these until something is actually online and ready for you to invest in. We have, on numerous occasions, asked universities like UCT and various philanthropies to reinvest a small portion of their substantial collective endowments to help kickstart an ethical investment industry in SA, but so far, they’ve declined to do so.

There can be a big difference between investments that engage with these issues (which may be better than non-engagement, but can effectively conceal the need for more urgent action), and investments that engage adequately with these issues. In 2020, small reductions in carbon intensity and commitments to emissions reporting are woefully inadequate responses to a crisis that demands annual carbon emissions reductions of 7.6% starting right now.

In other words, investing in an ESG fund should be seen only as a first step towards sustainable investment. Portfolio alignment with a 1.5C world is a far stronger objective and nothing less will suffice.

We are well aware of the arguments that the global financial system is inherently skewed towards damaging the environment; and that capitalism itself is the problem. Those who believe this are likely to see the kinds of resources we list here as woefully inadequate ways of addressing the problems we face, and they may be right. But we see socially responsible investment as having two functions. One is to ensure that we’re investing in the future we want, and not the future we don’t want. These instruments do help with that, and can help a lot more, as more people choose them. 

The other vital function of ethical investment, and the original purpose of the global divestment movement, is to build people’s understanding of these issues through deep engagement, and that kind of engagement is going to be vital in building a more just and sustainable financial system, whether built through reform or replacement. This point is vital to understanding the divestment movement – it’s not just about the money. Divestment (and positive reinvestment) is about building a broad social consensus that investments that threaten human rights are no longer acceptable. Direct financial impacts are secondary:

Well, I’ve heard [this claim] that divestment is ineffective and I would like to suggest otherwise. Taking the South African case [within the anti-apartheid movement], where I wrote a 700-page book on it, it’s absolutely true it had no effect on the stock price and that’s totally irrelevant. At no point during the South African divestment or in the fossil fuel movement does anyone care about the stock price of these companies. If you look at it through finance, you see no effect and therefore you conclude that there’s been no impact. But if you look at it through the discipline of history, you see that it’s incontrovertible that step by step by step it was the South African divestment movement that changed the public discourse, that transformed the decisions of corporations to get out of South Africa and our government, led by a Republican Senate, to pass a comprehensive sanctions bill. Well, one of the things that’s fascinating about it is that climate change has been one of those problems where we’ve been hoping that someone else would do something about it. But divestment has the impact of saying, what are your direct responsibilities? If you own stock in Exxon, if you’re receiving dividends from Exxon whose business model is to destroy the planet, do you feel comfortable with that? Do you endorse what they’re doing? Normally, when you own a stock, you’re endorsing their business plan. And so instead of pushing this off to someone else, it transforms people and institutions exactly as a democracy should.

– Robert Massie, senior advisor Boston Common Asset Management, speaking in 2015.

Help us build this resource

If there’s a product that you know of that you think should be included here, please let us know. Constructive commentary and corrections are welcome; we will actively seek peer review to improve this resource. You can comment on the doc if you’re reading the Google doc version, or get in touch

Please sign up to our newsletter if you want to hear about updates to this guide. We also have an occasional newsletter for financial professionals: Planet A Investment.

Criteria for fossil fuel divestment

In a world that is still overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels, there is no such thing as a 100% fossil fuel-free fund. Companies that are not fossil fuel companies, such as cement companies, may still make heavy use of fossil fuels, depending on their business model or the way their electricity is generated. So where to draw the line when divesting? Below, we list various ways of drawing this line. We lean towards the view that the new European Union Paris-aligned climate benchmark may provide the strongest decarbonisation methodology that we are aware of.

  • Divestment from the Carbon Underground 200: The definition of divestment most used in the global divestment movement has been divestment from the Carbon Underground 200 list of “the top global 200 publicly-owned coal, oil, and gas reserve owners ranked by the carbon emissions embedded in their reserves.” This approach has had the limitation of “allowing” continued investment in smaller fossil fuel companies. The movement has acknowledged different flavours of divestment and given recognition to partial divestment accomplishments. The Q4 2019 version of the Carbon Underground list included Exxaro and five other well-known SA-listed resource companies. If you invest offshore, there are many more global companies on the Carbon Underground 200 list that you should avoid – such as Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Saudi Aramco – but also, many more prestructured options for avoiding them.
  • Ad hoc negative screening of fossil fuel companies: The CU200 list is proprietary, but it’s easy to figure out that the South African companies that should be excluded from investments are our big coal users and producers: Eskom (not listed on the JSE, but does appear in bond products), Sasol, Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Xstrata, African Rainbow Minerals. Lesser known JSE-listed fossil fuel companies include AEP Energy Africa, Buffalo Coal Corp, Oando, Camac Energy, Renergen. The Global Coal Exit List maintained by the German NGO Urgewald includes over 30 SA coal companies, though we have not yet been able to determine exactly which of these are listed on the JSE.
  • Science-based targets and rapid emissions reductions targets: The UN Environment Programme and others have clearly described how meeting the goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C demands annual 7.6% carbon emissions reductions until 2030. The Science Based Targets Initiative tracks those companies that have made commitments to reducing their emissions in line with science. As of October 2020, the only listed SA company considered to have a 1.5C-compatible emissions reduction target is Woolworths.
  • EU Climate Benchmarks: The European Union has introduced two new benchmarks for climate change. ‘The Paris-Aligned Benchmark (PAB) must achieve a 7% year-on year reduction in CO2 emissions plus a 1.5°C limit to global temperature rises by 2050, and excludes fossil fuel companies. The Climate Transition benchmark (CTB) has similar targets but permits fossil fuel investments as part of a transition process.’ The EU framework defines fossil fuel companies as those that ‘generate more than 1% of their turnover from coal, more than 10% of their turnover from oil, and more than 50% of their turnover from gas’.
  • Reinvestment: Ideally, divestment from fossil fuels should be accompanied by reinvestment into sustainable energy and other ecologically sustainable activities. The JSE allows any company to describe themselves as a renewable energy company, so again, one has to be cautious about “renewable energy investments”. Dig down, and “renewable energy companies” are often invested in natural gas. As of October 2020, the only genuine renewable energy company listed on the JSE appears to be Gaia Infrastructure Capital. [Know of others? Please tell us.] In theory, one might choose to reinvest in a fossil fuel company that has demonstrated a sincere intent to decarbonise; but we know of only four such companies that might qualify, and none are South African.
  • CDP temperature ratings: A new ratings tool from the Carbon Disclosure Project aims to rate companies on the implied temperature increase of their operational plans. In their words, “The temperature ratings reflect the long-term global warming potential if global GHG emissions would reduce at the same pace as the company.” 

Our view is that even pure-play renewable energy companies should be screened to ensure that they meet other ESG criteria for good governance, labour practices, etc.

ESG: Definition and limitations

While we like the terms “ethical investment” and “socially responsible investment”, the dominant ethical investment philosophy now goes by the term “ESG”, which means incorporating environmental, social and governance factors into investment decision-making. ESG is a marriage of ethics and science.

Traditional investors are often scornful of ethical considerations in investing. For example, S&P tells us that, “Socially responsible investing therefore got somewhat of a bad rep for being ‘values-based investing’ in mainstream finance circles.” 

If having values and investing accordingly gives you a bad reputation, it’s little wonder the world sometimes seems to be teetering. It seems being a functional sociopath is part of the job description for many asset managers. In fact, there are many ethical people in finance, but they often have to cloak their ethics, or their ethics are overwhelmed by the systems in which they function. The ethical dimension to ESG (for example, S&P ESG indices exclude tobacco completely) is heavily disguised with analytics.

Another problem is that ESG methodologies are proprietary, and so a significant portion of underlying analysis is hidden from those of us who seek to understand ESG rankings and weightings.

There’s another real problem with ESG: “ESG Scores Aren’t Enough to Achieve a Net-Zero Future”. Does ESG nudge the world in the right direction? Probably. Is it doing it fast enough? Almost certainly not.

If you just want to get better returns, ESG is a very good idea. According to Investec, for example, “Research has shown that over the last five years, a strategy of picking stocks according to their ESG metrics would have outperformed world equity markets by 3% per annum.” 

In a 2015 study that  assessed over 10,000 funds and managed accounts, Morgan Stanley concluded that,  ‘Investing in sustainability has usually met, and often exceeded, the performance of comparable traditional investments. This is on both an absolute and a risk-adjusted basis, across asset classes and over time.’

They updated this research in 2019 and again concluded that, “There is no financial tradeoff in the returns of sustainable funds and traditional funds”, and that, “Sustainable funds may offer lower market risk.”

How to get the ESG scores for particular companies

The measure of success for an index provider is getting asset managers to list products based on your indices. In respect of ESG indices, MSCI is somewhat ahead of S&P in South Africa. 

It’s an interesting exercise to see how each index provider rates the same company. For example, in February 2021, Sasol was given an ESG score of 60/100 by S&P, while MSCI ranked Sasol an ‘ESG laggard’, with a B score (on MSCI’s scale, the second-lowest possible rating).

S&P: It provides some of its ESG data in this open database. The data raises more questions than it answers, but you can look up the S&P ESG profiles of thousands of listed companies around the world here.

MSCI: Here are the MSCI ratings, which offer rather more information than do S&P, but still leave a lot of details inside the black box. 

‘Returns’ or ‘people and planet’? You can have both

As we just mentioned above, Investec points out that, “Research has shown that over the last five years, a strategy of picking stocks according to their ESG metrics would have outperformed world equity markets by 3% per annum.” There’s much more evidence that ESG methodologies improve returns. European ESG funds are estimated to yield average returns of 6.9% per year, compared with 6.3% for traditional funds, according to Morningstar. Morgan Stanley analyzed 10,723 funds over 2004–2018 and found no financial tradeoff for investing in sustainable funds. 

Locally, Portfoliometrix investment  managers conclude that, “It seems investors do not have to choose between ‘returns’ and ‘people and planet’. They can have both.”  

There’s good evidence that fossil fuel divestment in particular can improve financial returns or at worst leaves them unchanged. There’s no reason to think that positive investment to address climate change in particular comes with financial compromises: Morgan Stanley addresses myths around climate-friendly investment.

Yet SA asset managers mostly only pay lip service to ESG, leaving investors with underperforming investments, and SA companies under-performing as corporate citizens. This state of affairs seems to be something of an open scandal. 

Financial returns and social returns

Ethical, socially responsible or ESG-type investing acknowledges that focusing on financial returns only is bad for society, and in the long run, probably bad for most individual investors as well. Sadly, investment professionals are too often overwhelmingly focused on short investment horizons and limited metrics such as GDP and crude profit. 

A more sensible approach acknowledges that the foundations of the economy are the environment and society, and that in the long run, investments that tend to the wellbeing of the environment and society are more likely to foster general prosperity and wellbeing, while those that neglect the environment and society bring down everyone’s financial returns. For example, climate breakdown has already begun constraining SA’s economy — it’s not just a future threat, but already making us all poorer. 

Some cautions   

  1. When a company describes an investment product as being “green”, or “lower-carbon”, or “sustainable” or as having “higher environmental, social and governance” scores, you still can’t be sure that it actually does what it says on the tin. Researchers at the UCT Graduate School of Business have uncovered how cynically many SA asset managers use rhetoric around sustainability and ESG – without actually changing their practices. ESG is a growing investment trend. There will be those who try to exploit it. So be careful. We will try to ask questions that get “under the hood” a bit, and provide some answers for you. 
  2. One of the key questions to ask is, how much is the carbon intensity of an investment reduced, compared to similar products without a carbon focus or the JSE SWIX index (for SA equity products). 
  3. Our information should not be taken as recommendations. We are not accredited financial advisers. Proceed cautiously and don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
  4. We live in a very imperfect world. As Fossil Free SA, we have some idea what we think an ideal, ethical or socially responsible investment product would look like, and we’ve been in dialogue for years with financial service providers trying to encourage them to launch such products, but to date, no-one has done so. In the meantime, we can sometimes invest in products that may fall short of our ideals, but encourage the overall development of an ethical investment market in South Africa.
  5.  Even if a deeply ethical investment product was launched in SA, it probably still would not meet the preferences of all ethical investors. Some people are more concerned about climate change, some are more concerned about social transformation, some are more concerned about animal rights, some are more concerned about food safety. With the best will in the world, it’s hard for investment managers to accommodate all these concerns. The answer to this problem, hopefully, is that in time a variety of funds will emerge that can satisfy different ethical preferences.
  6. At the moment, many of the offshore funds available in SA are based on MSCI indices. This means that the underlying ESG scoring is the same. S&P have created five carbon-specific ESG indices for South Africa, but so far as we know, no products have yet been linked to these indices.
  7. You can read about how MSCI measures ESG here. For example, Sasol is ranked between “laggard” and “average” by MSCI for its ESG performance. Microsoft, in contrast, gets a top “AAA” score.

South African fossil fuel-free equity funds

None yet.

Here we will list fossil fuel-free SA equity funds when they are created. There are to date none that we know of. We have been in discussions with several service providers, working to encourage the development of such funds, and are in 2021 commencing a new campaign calling on top SA asset managers to create these funds.

South African environment funds

None yet. 


We describe funds that are specifically designed to have a substantial positive environmental impact as environment funds. Here we will list SA equity funds that are specifically designed to have a measurable, substantial and robust positive environmental impact, but that may not yet necessarily meet any of our definitions of fossil-free.

South African ESG equity funds

Old Mutual ESG Equity Fund

How they describe it: “A South African equity fund that aims to achieve long-term capital growth by gaining exposure to companies with a superior ESG score relative to their peers. The fund will target a lower carbon footprint and a higher ESG profile relative to its benchmark.” Old Mutual has advised us that it targets a 40% lower carbon intensity than the benchmark for the fund, the JSE Capped SWIX. The fund also targets a “20% higher ESG profile score relative to the benchmark”.

Cautions: Our follow-up questions to OM have been: How is the ESG score calculated? What fossil fuel companies are included and excluded? Has OM considered how the fund could be made Paris-compliant? Has the fund been back-tested and what were the results? We have not yet received clear answers to these questions.

Link | In the news |

Offshore fossil fuel-free funds available in South Africa

Coronation Global Sustainable Equity Income Fund

This fund is currently listed only in Coronation’s 2019 Stewardship Report (p. 11), but will be open for new business by June 2021. It is an offshore fund, not an SA equity fund. It aims to outperform the MSCI All World Country Index. The fund: 

… excludes investment in companies that derive a material part of their revenue from activities that cause, or could result in, material harm to society or to the environment. The fund excludes investment into all companies that operate in this sphere, such as tobacco companies, companies that manufacture controversial weapons, and those that operate in the thermal coal or tar sands industries.

Coronation advises us that the fund will be available by the end of June 2021, that it will be a retail fund with a low minimum investment, and that this will be a de facto fossil free fund that most likely excludes all companies listed as part of the Carbon Underground 200 –  which is why we are listing it here under fossil free funds.

Link: No link yet available, but it will initially be listed only on the Coronation platform. We hope it will be added to other LISPs soon. Coronation Unit Trusts will, we are told, be listed on the Easy Equities platform later in 2021. We hope this fund may included.

Offshore environment funds available in SA

We describe funds that are specifically designed to have a substantial and robust positive environmental impact as environment funds. This section lists environment funds based on offshore investments that are easily accessible to SA investors.

Ninety One Global Environment Fund

How they describe it: “The Fund aims to provide long-term income and capital growth.

The Fund invests globally, primarily in companies contributing to positive environmental change. This will include companies operating in services, infrastructures, technologies and resources related to environmental sustainability. Examples may include companies which provide, utilize, implement or advise upon technology-based systems, products or services in environmental markets, particularly those of alternative energy, decarbonisation and energy efficiency, water treatment and pollution control, and waste technology and resource management.”

Link 

Offshore ESG funds available in SA

Old Mutual MSCI Emerging Markets ESG Index Feeder Fund

How they describe it: “A low-cost index fund that aims to achieve long-term capital growth by owning a basket of shares with high relative ESG ratings across emerging markets.”

Link

Old Mutual MSCI World ESG Index Feeder Fund

How they describe it: “A low-cost index fund that aims to achieve long-term capital growth by owning a basket of shares with high relative ESG scores across developed markets.”

Link

Satrix MSCI Emerging Markets ESG Enhanced ETF

How they describe it: “The Satrix MSCI EM ESG Enhanced ETF tracks the MSCI EM ESG Enhanced Focus Index, which is designed to maximise exposure to positive environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics. Investors who are evaluating the need for emerging market equity, combined with a desire to invest responsibly, will find this ETF ensures they get the best of both. The index is designed to maximize exposure to positive environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, while reducing the carbon equivalent exposure to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as well as their exposure to potential emissions risk of fossil fuel reserves by 30%. The index also aims to maintain risk and return characteristics similar to its underlying market capitalization weighted index.

Link | Available on the Easy Equities platform and SatrixNow. 

Our cautions: Heavy holdings in TenCent, a Chinese company linked to Chinese government surveillance.

Satrix MSCI World ESG Enhanced ETF

How they describe it: “The Satrix MSCI World ESG Enhanced ETF tracks the MSCI World ESG Enhanced Focus Index, which is designed to maximise exposure to positive environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics. Investors who are evaluating the need for developed market equity, combined with a desire to invest responsibly, will find this ETF ensures they get the best of both. The index is designed to maximize exposure to positive environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, while reducing the carbon equivalent exposure to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as well as their exposure to potential emissions risk of fossil fuel reserves by 30%. The index also aims to maintain risk and return characteristics similar to its underlying market capitalization weighted index.”

Link | Available on the Easy Equities platform and SatrixNow.

Our cautions: Heavy holdings in Facebook and Amazon.

Offshore funds, indices and resources not directly available via SA platforms

Unlisted, alternative retail investments with a dollop of green

The Sun Exchange

The Sun Exchange is an innovative South African-based platform that allows “anyone [to] go solar and start building wealth powered by sunlight. Buy online in minutes. We accept national currency and Bitcoin.” 

We have been tracking the Sun Exchange for years, and consider them to be extremely reputable. For example, after experiencing underperformance on their initial Stellenbosch installation, it has been revamped to make up for that underperformance; and they now produce clear reports showing how actual performance compares to projected performance.

Our cautions: Bitcoin is often criticised as having high environmental impacts, though Bitcoin enthusiasts sometimes dispute this. You can skirt this controversy by buying into the Sun Exchange using rands.

Fedgroup Impact Farming

Fedgroup offers some alternative investment options: bees, berries and solar: “Diversify your investment portfolio in an alternative asset class venture. Invest in smart farming and earn income from your assets at harvest time. Impact Farming pays you a return that you could either reinvest for compounded growth, or enjoy as a passive income. All ventures take into consideration the potential for environmental, social and economic improvement.”

Cautions: These are locked-in long-term investments. Once you’ve purchased solar cells, you are committed for 20 years, unless you yourself find someone else who wishes to purchase your investment. (The blueberry investment term is shorter, being eight years. Honey is ten years.) 

Environment funds that seem to over-promise 

Investec Environmental World Index Autocall

This claims to be “the first structured product to be issued in South Africa over an Environmental World Index, giving investors access to world equity markets whilst considering their environmental impact.” It is a complex product linked to the Euronext CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) Environment World EW Index.

Our cautions: Reporting to the CDP alone doesn’t mean that a company is actively reducing its emissions, and the index still has 2.56% exposure to oil and gas. We believe the time for rewarding disclosure alone is over. This is not a conventional retail investment, the minimum investment is very high (R100k) and there is an acknowledged risk of losing a good chunk of your capital if it doesn’t perform. 

WWF-Prescient Living Planet Fund

WWF is slightly supportive of divestment efforts, and in South Africa, manages a Living Planet investment fund that is lower-carbon than the JSE as a whole and ‘aims to deliver sustainable long-term capital growth within a framework that integrates environmental sustainability principles’. The fund excludes any ‘direct investments’ in:

  • Arms & weapon systems
  • Nuclear power production
  • Coal-mining companies
  • Trade in CITES Flora & Fauna
  • Tobacco
  • Animal testing for cosmetic purposes
  • Pornography

It also restricts investment in oil, gas, coal extraction, and companies with high water resource impacts. We like these criteria. But…

Our cautions: From June 2018, the Living Planet fund included a 2.3% share in BHP Billiton, a company listed on the Carbon Underground 200, making this WWF fund not a fossil-free fund by our definition and apparently in breach of its own principles. 

Schroders International Selection Fund Global Sustainable Growth

This actively managed fund is the only fund with some kind of sustainability focus listed on the Allan Gray LISP. According to the fund fact sheet:

The fund aims to provide capital growth by investing in equities of companies worldwide which meet the investment manager’s sustainability criteria. 

Our cautions: Unfortunately, the fact sheet provides no details of how Schroder’s applies its sustainability criteria. We asked Allan Gray to provide information on the relative carbon intensity of the fund compared to its benchmarks, but never received a response. We may be wrong to list it in this section; but both Schroders and Allan Gray currently offer no information to substantiate the ‘sustainability’ label.

Appendix 1: What’s ethically material for South Africans?

This is an evolving list of examples of some of the various ethical issues and concerns that might be incorporated into an ethical investment product meeting the particular social and ethical concerns of South Africans. This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. It may not be possible to incorporate all these concerns into one product. As ever, we welcome your thoughts.

Ethical issues
Concerns and comments
Systemic and existentialOverarching issues that affect everyone and can severely damage or break civilisation.
ClimateFossil fuels: oil, gas and coal.
InequalityProfoundly linked to climate, democracy and social sustainability.
Human rights abusesA broad but vital category that overlaps with others listed here.
SocialIssues affecting individual wellbeing and social cohesion.
GenderGender equality is socially just and pragmatic – more gender-balanced societies are more prosperous.
TransformationRacial justice: The need to build a far more egalitarian and just South Africa.
Arms and weapon systemsDeath, suffering, and their commercialisation.
Labour rights and occupational safety.Labour abuses are human rights abuses, and undermine society and democracy. Occupational safety is especially important given SA’s mining industry.
AlcoholSignificant health and wellbeing concerns.
ObesityMajor health concerns. In good part driven by poverty, inequality and over-processed foods. Increases vulnerability to Covid-19. Investor backlash beginning abroad.
TobaccoMajor health concerns.
GamblingFinancial exploitation.
PornographyGender inequality and human rights abuses.
EnvironmentalEnvironmental problems profoundly undermine human wellbeing, and the welfare of other sentient, living beings.
DeforestationClimate breakdown, biodiversity loss and economic damage.
Intensive meat productionMajor contributor to carbon emissions.
Nuclear power productionFalse climate solution; unaddressed concerns with long-term disposal of high-level waste and nuclear proliferation.
Trade in wildlife productsAnimal cruelty; species extinction; risk of zoonotic disease.
Animal testingAnimal cruelty.

Appendix 2: JSE-listed renewable energy and fossil fuel companies

NB:The JSE is South Africa’s main stock exchange. This list is in the process of being compiled, and should not be considered even close to authoritative or accurate. The criterion for inclusion on either list is that they derive significant revenue from, or have significant investments in, either renewable energy or fossil fuels. 

Renewable energy
Fossil fuels
Wind and/or solar onlyCoal 
None that we know of.Anglo American AGL
BHP Billiton BHP
Other renewables
Glencore GLN
Montauk Renewables MKR (mostly biogas)Exxaro EXX
Hulisani HUL (various energy holdings: wind, solar and open cycle [fossil] gas.)African Rainbow Minerals ARM
Sasol SOL
South32 S32