Netcare 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	Netcare provides some insight into how it seeks to align policy advocacy with its climate objectives, but the disclosures are relatively high-level and mainly focused on direct engagement. The company explains that "our business strategies and commitments are linked directly to our employee key performance areas ensuring all activities and engagements with the potential to influence policy are consistent with our overall climate change strategy" and that "each employee’s performance is evaluated regularly to ensure continued alignment", which shows a concrete, if internal, mechanism for reviewing lobbying activity against climate goals. It also confirms a "public commitment … to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement", signalling that climate criteria are embedded in its advocacy commitments. Board-level oversight is referenced through the Social and Ethics Committee, which "monitors overall corporate citizenship performance" and whose mandate includes "responding to the changing regulatory environment", but the company does not spell out how this committee (or any named individual) scrutinises specific lobbying positions. Aside from noting that it "work[s] openly and transparently with government, NGOs and lobby groups" and participates in forums such as "presentations to Parliament", Netcare discloses no structured process for assessing or addressing misalignment in either direct or trade-association lobbying. The lack of a published lobbying review, detailed monitoring procedures, or criteria for evaluating industry-association memberships indicates that the governance framework, while containing a stated alignment policy and an internal review linkage, remains limited in scope and transparency. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Netcare provides some insight into how it seeks to align policy advocacy with its climate objectives, but the disclosures are relatively high-level and mainly focused on direct engagement. The company explains that "our business strategies and commitments are linked directly to our employee key performance areas ensuring all activities and engagements with the potential to influence policy are consistent with our overall climate change strategy" and that "each employee’s performance is evaluated regularly to ensure continued alignment", which shows a concrete, if internal, mechanism for reviewing lobbying activity against climate goals. It also confirms a "public commitment … to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement", signalling that climate criteria are embedded in its advocacy commitments. Board-level oversight is referenced through the Social and Ethics Committee, which "monitors overall corporate citizenship performance" and whose mandate includes "responding to the changing regulatory environment", but the company does not spell out how this committee (or any named individual) scrutinises specific lobbying positions. Aside from noting that it "work[s] openly and transparently with government, NGOs and lobby groups" and participates in forums such as "presentations to Parliament", Netcare discloses no structured process for assessing or addressing misalignment in either direct or trade-association lobbying. The lack of a published lobbying review, detailed monitoring procedures, or criteria for evaluating industry-association memberships indicates that the governance framework, while containing a stated alignment policy and an internal review linkage, remains limited in scope and transparency.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Netcare Limited provides a mixed picture of transparency around its climate-related lobbying. It names only a handful of climate measures it has been involved with – chiefly the “Just Energy Transition Investment Plan,” the “Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill,” and discussions on the new “Climate Change Act” – but the disclosures stop short of describing the specific elements of these measures that the company tried to influence. By contrast, its explanations of how it lobbies are far clearer: the company states that it “works openly and transparently with government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and lobby groups,” and cites concrete mechanisms such as “presentations to Parliament,” “submissions to the NCOP,” and a “formal petition to President Ramaphosa.” These examples, along with references to “direct engagement” and “bilateral engagements,” show that the company is willing to identify both the channels it uses and the public bodies it addresses. However, the disclosures rarely spell out what policy changes it actually wants. Beyond broad corporate goals like achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and support for “universal healthcare,” Netcare does not articulate the specific legislative amendments, threshold levels, or financial mechanisms it is advocating, leaving the intended policy outcomes largely implicit. Overall, the company is reasonably open about how it lobbies but far less forthcoming about which climate policies it tries to shape and what substantive changes it seeks.	C