Climate change has necessitated action by states to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. South Africa finds itself at the heart of this discourse for several reasons. Firstly, it has relied on coal as a significant source of energy. Secondly, the country has unmet energy needs – exemplified by the constant outages that have taken place over the years – and therefore needs to look for sources to plug this energy gap. Finally, South Africa is one of the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) countries earmarked for support towards decarbonisation. To support promote this transition, the Government has enacted the Climate Change Act of 2024 and Carbon Tax Act of 2019. South Africa also has significant deposits of manganese and a sizeable deposit of copper and zinc. It recently adopted a Critical Minerals and Metals strategy, which outlines a roadmap to ‘leverage… [platinum, manganese, iron ore, coal and chrome] in a manner that promotes inclusive growth, industrial development, job creation…. guided by constitutional commitment to environmental sustainability, social justice, and economic equity’.

The global rush to decarbonise inevitably means big operational changes for fossil fuel corporations, with unsurprising reports emerging of the ways in which these companies are allegedly attempting to obstruct energy transition plans.

A recent report by Just Share (‘The Obstruction Playbook: How corporate lobbying threatens South Africa’s Just Transition’) alleges that key corporations and industry associations in the South Africa have systematically worked to delay, dilute or derail South Africa’s climate change policy. With a particular focus on the Climate Change Act of 2024 and Carbon Tax Act of 2019, the report alleges that corporate lobbying led to the removal and softening of critical enforcement mechanisms and reporting obligations. Just Share cites previous versions of the Climate Change Bill to demonstrate how it was progressively weakened – including the removal of direct penalties for companies that would have failed to meet carbon budget targets, as well as the replacement of mandatory compliance language with “encouraging best practices”. The weakened final version of the Climate Change Bill allows high-emitting companies to avoid strict compliance, undermining the very concept of a climate accountability framework. Using public documents and internal documents obtained via the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), the report outlines how companies allegedly lobbied the South African government to weaken regulatory measures in a deliberate effort to undermine the nation's implementation of a meaningful just and fair transition.

Further to this, South Africa has no formal lobbying laws or mandatory transparency rules, allowing influential actors to exert pressure behind closed doors, often shaping legislation or delaying climate action, without public scrutiny. If this continues unchecked, the transition to cleaner energy systems and alignment with national and international climate goals will inevitably be undermined, creating a landscape in which accountability is limited, and meaningful reform becomes more difficult to achieve.

Following the release of Just Share’s report in May 2025, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) invited all companies and industry associations mentioned in the report to respond to the allegations raised. Specifically, the companies and industry associations were asked to address the following:

1. disclose any principles guiding their engagement with government on climate policy;
2. publish any climate-related submissions they had made to government and;
3. describe any steps taken to ensure their positions on climate policy align with both national and international decarbonisation goals.

They were also asked to respond to the allegation that they were responsible for weakening climate change policies in South Africa. The response rate was 62% (11 out of 18 companies and industry associations responded). The responses varied in their level of detail and engagement with the specific concerns raised.

Key allegations and findings of the report

The report identifies several major tactics and patterns of influence:

Regulatory obstruction through lobbying

The companies and industry associations are reported to have engaged in extensive lobbying efforts aimed at influencing key elements of South Africa’s Carbon Tax Act of 2019 and the more recent Climate Change Act of 2024. These actors are alleged to have pushed back against stringent provisions in both laws, arguing that such measures would impose excessive costs on businesses and undermine the country’s economic competitiveness. A common narrative used during these ‘campaigns’ centred on the perceived threat to jobs, with the companies and industry associations frequently warning that higher compliance costs and carbon pricing could lead to widespread unemployment. By framing climate regulation as a direct risk to economic growth and livelihoods, the companies and industry associations sought to delay, dilute or weaken policy instruments intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Misalignment between public and private positions.

Many companies allegedly publicly endorse climate action, while in private actively resisting the proposed legislation, suggesting deliberate greenwashing, a practice recognised by the United Nations as a significant obstacle to tackling climate change. By misleading the public to believe that a company or other entity is doing more to protect the environment than it is, greenwashing promotes false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay concrete and credible action.

Overrepresentation of high emission corporates and business associations in the policymaking processes.

Government consultations on climate-related legislation seem to have been heavily influenced by high-emission sectors, particularly coal and fossil fuel industries, which secured a dominant presence in the policy-making process. These sectors were granted significant access and input during negotiations, allowing them to shape the direction and scope of climate measures. This imbalance not only limited the diversity of perspectives but also raised concerns about policy capture, where the interests of carbon-intensive industries overshadow broader public and environmental priorities. The report does not suggest that other stakeholders were deliberately excluded; rather, it notes that the private sector enjoyed levels of access that other stakeholders did not, and that the arguments of the fossil fuel industry were given disproportionate influence compared to the broader public interest. The report notes:

“…powerful companies and industry groups dominate economic discourse and the outcome of climate policy…, which creates a misleading impression that their interests represent the public interest. This is reinforced by the surprising absence of any significant countervailing action from…businesses which are not high emitters, and which stand to be significantly negatively impacted if the country fails to decarbonise, like the automotive, agricultural, tourism and insurance sectors, not to mention the renewable energy industry. These sectors do not appear to play any significant role in engaging government on climate policy, allowing high emitters to set the agenda”. (page 11 of the report)

Lack of transparency on lobbying initiatives.

South Africa currently has no legal requirement for either the government or private companies to disclose the content of policy submissions or details of lobbying activities. This lack of transparency creates an opaque environment that enables influential actors to exert pressure on policymakers behind closed doors, often securing concessions without public oversight or accountability. Such secrecy undermines the integrity of the legislative process and allows vested interests to shape climate policy in ways that prioritise corporate objectives over the public good.

Analysis of companies’ responses

A chorus of responses from key industry players revealed a unified front of denial and defence, yet with nuanced differences in transparency and emphasis.

Support for national climate goals

Eskom, the state-owned utility giant, set a tone of cautious support for national climate goals, disclosing principles rooted in its full alignment with government commitments under the Paris Agreement and South Africa's updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). In contrast, associations like the Minerals Council and the Fuels Industry Association of South Africa (FIASA) framed their engagements as pragmatic advocacy for sustainable growth, with the Minerals Council prioritising a conducive environment for mining investment and FIASA stressing rational, science-based policies that account for South Africa’s developmental challenges, such as price regulation in fuel markets. Companies like Seriti Resources deferred entirely to the Minerals Council for policy principles, while Sasol and TotalEnergies articulated more detailed guidelines. Sasol emphasised transparent, balanced participation for coherent regulatory frameworks, and TotalEnergies highlighted six responsible advocacy principles aligned with global net-zero ambitions by 2050. Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) and the South African Iron and Steel Institute (SAISI) echoed this by advocating for inclusive, economically sound approaches, with SAISI adopting the Worldsteel Association’s climate policy to promote environmental awareness and circular economy practices among members.

Publication of climate-related submissions to government

The responses highlighted varying degrees of openness, underscoring a tension between professed transparency and practical reluctance. Sasol stood out for its demonstrated transparency, citing compliance with Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) requests, including disclosures to Just Share itself from 2021-2023, and treating public participation submissions as open records. Eskom acknowledged sharing many comments publicly during multistakeholder engagements over 15 years, but stops short of committing to full disclosure, critiquing the report for overlooking non-industry inputs. Similarly, the Minerals Council mentioned workshop participation without offering to release documents, and FIASA deferred disclosure to its members as a trade association. Seriti Resources, again relying on the Minerals Council, provided no direct commitment, while SAISI noted that members submit data individually under competition laws, referencing public reports like ArcelorMittal's without centralising institute-level information. TotalEnergies publishes global positions and association reviews online but invites inquiries to the Energy Council of South Africa (ECSA) for specifics, and BUSA implied submissions are part of regulatory processes without pledging publication.

Alignment with national and international decarbonisation goals

All responding companies and industry associations robustly denied obstruction, portraying their actions as constructive contributions to a just transition tailored to South Africa's socio-economic realities, such as high unemployment and energy insecurity. Eskom detailed extensive steps like voluntary GHG reporting since the 1990s, participation in carbon budgets and renewable integration via the JETP, arguing that emissions have declined and policies remain effective. The Minerals Council highlighted mining’s leadership in renewables with 16GW projects worth R275 billion, while FIASA claimed alignment by pointing out policy inconsistencies without elaborating on initiatives. Seriti Resources emphasised its shift to renewables through subsidiary Seriti Green, including a 155MW wind farm and MOU with Eskom for carbon reduction, stressing the need to protect 100,000 coal jobs. Sasol referred to annual disclosures and pollution prevention plans, framing engagements as pathways to Paris compliance without sacrificing growth. TotalEnergies denied lobbying delays, citing investments like the Prieska solar plant and ECSA support for net-zero by 2050. BUSA rejected claims by underscoring its role in public-private partnerships for market liberalisation and green investment, and SAISI focused on member efforts in hard-to-abate sectors, like adopting mitigation plans and innovative technologies, while noting industry challenges from imports and low capacity.

Allegations of weakening South Africa's climate change policies through lobbying

All respondents denied this while highlighting their constructive contributions to a just energy transition, though with varying emphases on context and actions. Eskom dismissed the claims by noting the report’s explicit exclusion of a focused analysis on them due to purported access difficulties, despite no formal PAIA request being received, and framed their substantive comments as efforts to strengthen and streamline policies in line with national circumstances and democratic processes. The Minerals Council emphasised its advocacy for sustainable mining growth and support for reforms accelerating renewables, positioning industry interventions as facilitative rather than obstructive. FIASA refuted the allegations as incorrect, clarifying that their lobbying targeted practical challenges in price-regulated fuel markets to enable cost pass-through and consumer-driven change. Seriti Resources denied direct lobbying, deferring to the Minerals Council which embraces long-term carbon pricing and underscored their shift from coal to renewables. Sasol argued that a lower-carbon future is essential for competitiveness and viability, with engagements aimed at identifying practical pathways under the Paris Accords without compromising growth or employment. TotalEnergies categorically rejected any involvement in delaying or weakening legislation, citing their balanced multi-energy strategy for net-zero by 2050 and investments like the Prieska solar plant as evidence of supporting the transition from coal. BUSA firmly rejected the notion of lobbying against the Carbon Tax or Climate Change Act, portraying their positions as pragmatic, inclusive and focused on economically sustainable policies amid poverty and inequality.

Conclusion and recommendations

The Just Share report sheds light on a critical gap in South Africa’s climate governance architecture, exposing how entrenched corporate influence may undermine the country’s ability to implement a truly equitable and effective energy transition. While major corporations seem to enjoy disproportionate access to policymakers and significant leverage over legislation, the space for environmental and social justice actors, including civil society groups, local communities and labour organisations appears to be more limited to formal participation processes. This imbalance may lead to powerful industry actors shaping climate policies in ways that prioritise short-term corporate economic interests over long-term sustainability and social equity.

Without reforms such as mandatory lobbying transparency, stronger mechanisms for more equitable public participation and legally enforceable environmental safeguards, the country’s just transition risks being slowed, weakened or captured entirely by vested interests. The consequences of inaction extend beyond policy delays: they threaten the livelihoods of vulnerable communities, hinder progress towards decarbonisation, and compromise South Africa’s ability to meet both national and international climate commitments.

To government:

• Introduce regulation on mandatory public disclosure requirements for business-government interactions, similar legislation is already found in other jurisdictions, lobbying transparency laws, mandating disclosure of all policy submissions.
• Broaden stakeholder engagement in all environmental legislation as recommended in the Just Share report.
• Revisit South Africa’s climate policy, including the Climate Change Act and Carbon Tax Act to restore robust enforcement clauses and ensure just energy transition principles are embodied in future iterations of legislation.

To civil society must:

• Monitor and publish submissions made by corporates during policy developments relating to climate change.
• Develop own submissions to counter the narrative of corporate submissions.
• Advocate for an independent oversight body to assess the impact of industry lobbying on lawmaking.

To corporations must:

• Publish full policy positions and ensure public-private consistency.
• Establish independent audit mechanisms for their environmental advocacy.
• Align disclosures with independent frameworks such as the JSE Sustainability and Climate Disclosure Guidance and the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying.