Introduction
The RMI Framework 2020
This Framework document sets out the core content ofthe Responsible Mining Index (RMI) 2020. It provides acomprehensive reference of the major aspects of responsiblemining, based on society expectations of large-scale miningcompanies. As an extract of the RMI Methodology 2020, theframework includes information on a set of 43 topics, providingbrief overviews of each topic as well as the indicators andmetrics used in the RMI assessment to measure miningcompany policies and practices on these topics.
Responsible Mining Index
The biennial Responsible Mining Index (RMI), produced bythe Responsible Mining Foundation, is an evidence-basedassessment of large-scale mining companies’ policies andpractices, both at corporate and mine-site level, on a range ofeconomic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) issues.
RMI assesses companies from the perspective of societyexpectations of large-scale mining companies and examinesthe extent to which companies are addressing EESG issues in asystematic manner across all their mining activities and throughoutthe project lifecycle. The assessment is based on publiclyavailable information on the companies and their mine sites.
The methodology and scope of RMI have been developed inconsultation with the Foundation’s wide network of expertsand a broad range of stakeholders, including mining-affectedcommunities, civil society organisations, people’s movements, labour unions, national and international NGOs, governmentbodies, industry associations, mining companies, multistakeholderinitiatives, multilateral organisations, investors,academics, consultants and others. In particular, the focusof the RMI assessment on society expectations of miningcompanies has been informed by two rounds of discussionworkshops with mining-affected communities and civil societyin producing countries, including Côte d’Ivoire, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Peru and South Africa.
Scope of RMI 2020
The RMI assessment covers 43 topics, grouped into six broad thematic areas.
The RMI assessment focuses largely on company-widepolicies and practices, using three types of indicators (or ‘measurement areas’):
- Commitment indicators assess the extent to whichcompanies have produced formalised commitments,endorsed by senior management, and assigned responsibilities and resources to implement these policies.
- Action indicators assess the extent to which companies aresystematically putting in place measures to improve andmaximise the potential EESG benefits and avoid, minimise or mitigate the negative EESG impacts of their activities.
- Effectiveness indicators assess the extent to whichcompanies are tracking, reviewing and acting to improve their performance on managing EESG issues.
In addition, the RMI assessment also includes a smaller setof mine-site indicators to assess mine-site-levelactions onthe following topics: local employment, local procurement,post-closure viability of communities, community grievances,worker grievances, air quality, water quality, water quantity, tailings management, and emergency preparedness.
Economic Development
The large-scale extraction of minerals and metals represents a vitally important one-time opportunity for producing countries and their communities to gain lasting economic benefits from these non-renewable resources. The potential gains are huge: mineral wealth, if well managed, can transform national economies, reduce poverty and inequality, improve inter-generational equity and boost the health, education and wellbeing of a country’s population. Too often, however, these benefits are not realised. Some of the most resource-rich countries are among the poorest in the world and their mineral wealth, rather than bringing prosperity, has been seen to deepen poverty and fuel corruption and conflict. Even in developed economies, short-sighted mining developments can have long-lasting negative inter-generational effects.
Producing country governments are responsible for the stewardship of their countries’ mineral resources and the responsible management of the revenues generated by their extraction. Good governance is essential if mining is to fulfil its potential to contribute to sustained economic development. At the same time, mining companies have an important role to play in ensuring that the potential that their investments and activities represent, optimally enhances socio economic development within producing countries and the wider regions.
Large-scale mining companies, working in partnership with other stakeholders, can leverage their mining-related investments to catalyse development gains and in so doing contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, well-planned mine infrastructure can spur national development and supranational growth within the wider region (See A.01), while responsible procurement strategies can build producing country capacity to provide goods, consumables and services beyond the mine (See A.02). Mining companies can also support capacity building by facilitating the development and transfer of skills and technologies to other sectors (See A.03 and A.04). Supporting transparency and accountability in the use of mineral revenues is also of paramount importance (See B.04, B.05, B.06, B.07).
The global mining industry is becoming increasingly aware of the imperative, and acting on opportunities, to contribute to sustainable development. By building constructive partnerships with producing country governments, parallel industries, civil society, and other stakeholders to translate these opportunities into benefits, mining companies can strengthen their position as good corporate citizens and trusted development partners.
Economic Development
Not available for 2021
Business Conduct
Mining companies, like other global businesses, are answerable to their owners and shareholders, whether these be private individuals, corporations, governments or taxpayers. They are also increasingly being held to account by stakeholders and the global marketplace, which expect companies to apply ethical business practices and sound systems of corporate governance and transparency to their operations. In response to this demand some mining companies have made commitments to more responsibly manage the economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) aspects of their operations.
Just as a mining company’s economic development efforts can contribute to the achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (See Section A), responsible business conduct by mining companies can help producing countries progress toward these goals. For example, transparency of mining business practices, especially in countries with weak governance or corruption, not only helps to showcase a company’s good practices, but also can contribute to greater producing- country accountability (SDG 16) and a higher potential for mineral wealth to reduce poverty (SDG 1) and provide benefits to the whole population.
Conducting businesses with integrity also enables companies to respect human rights, workers and the environment; protect against corruption; and create value for producing countries and communities affected by mining activities, all of which are important concepts within the SDG.
Business Conduct
B.01 Business Ethics and Anti-Bribery and Corruption
Business ethics is the application of ethical values to the conduct of a company or individuals within that company. The set of ethical values adopted by a company is discretionary, but often includes values such as: integrity, fairness, openness. These values can then be applied to relevant economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) issues such as conflicts of interest; gifts and hospitality; political donations and lobbying; bribery and corruption; data privacy; use of social media; diversity; human rights; and treatment of or interactions with workers, communities and the environment.
Ethical conduct is more likely to be achieved if values are embedded in the company’s culture, throughout all of its departments and operations; expected behaviour is clearly communicated to all employees (through education and awareness raising programmes), relevant business partners and stakeholders; there are sanctions for breaches of conduct,but also incentives for achieving high ethical conduct; and monitoring mechanisms are in place to understand the extent to which the company is living up to its stated values. Also important is reporting to employees and stakeholders, which promotes learning and accountability at all levels of the company, and provides a means to demonstrate that commitments made at the corporate level are being carried out at the mine operational level.
Companies committed to ethical conduct will also have effective mechanisms in place that enable individuals from within or external to the company to raise concerns about unethical or unlawful conduct, including whistleblowing hotlines or similar procedures that allow anonymous, confidential reporting without fear of retaliation. In some situations, in order to build trust in the mechanism, it may be helpful to have an independent third-party manage the mechanism and report back to the company on the results. The creation of a culture of trust and openness also entails ensuring that workers (employees and contract workers) and suppliers have the confidence, and are encouraged, to raise issues of concern, and that protection is provided to those who speak out. This, in turn, is more likely to result in the early identification and prevention of unacceptable behaviours, enabling companies to protect their reputation, reduce financial losses, improve employee morale and reduce turnover.
An integral part of a company’s approach to ethical conduct is a robust system to prevent direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption. In 2003, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. In the convention document, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that, “Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a Government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
The mining sector is classified as one of the highest-risk sectors for corruption. Mining companies must obtain numerous licences and approvals to explore and develop mineral resources. Some government officials or others with enough political influence to block or delay mining projects may attempt to solicit bribes in exchange for facilitating those processes. This practice is especially prevalent when mining operations are located in countries that have a weak regulatory environment and rule of law.
The problem, however, cannot be placed solely at the feet of unethical government officials and other intermediaries. Some mining companies admit that they would willingly make cash payments or give unethical gifts to help their business during financially difficult times. Also, companies may be indirectly and in some cases unknowingly implicated in bribery or corruption through their relationships with agents, consultants or joint venture partners.
Bribery and corruption can be prevented or greatly reduced through implementation of robust and transparent anti-corruption due diligence and compliance programmes and other measures such as transparency around contracts, taxes and payments made to producing countries. Anti-corruption due diligence helps companies fight corruption within their own businesses, and reduce the potential of being associated with corruption through the actions of third parties such as agents, consultants, or suppliers. Such due diligence is now an expectation in many countries, and companies are also voluntarily taking steps to implement anti-corruption programmes to minimise their risks.
Less corruption in a society will lead to a more predictable and stable investment environment for companies, and help producing countries demonstrably maximise the benefits from the development of their natural resources.
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on anti-bribery and corruption.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption?
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
c. Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
The company commits to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on its prevention of bribery and corruption, including number and nature of incidents and actions taken in response?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption?
c. Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption?
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms for reporting concerns about unethical behaviour.
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on the functioning and uptake of its whistleblowing mechanisms, including number and nature of incidents and actions taken in response?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms?
c. Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms?
B.02 Board and Senior Management Accountability and Diversity
Corporate sustainability is a concept that has been embraced by companies around the globe. It is increasingly viewed as essential to long-term corporate success. It involves businesses respecting fundamental responsibilities in areas such as human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption, and taking actions to support and create value for societies around them.
Increasingly, companies are developing policies that demonstrate a commitment to responsible conduct on economic, environmental, social (including human rights) and governance (EESG) issues. However, policies do not always translate into long-term positive changes in producing countries or a sustained shift in corporate culture and values toward more responsible behaviour. Successful implementation of policies typically requires commitment, leadership and accountability from corporate boards and senior managers (at the corporate and mine-site levels), as well as dedicated personnel at the operational level to ensure that strategic decisions are applied throughout a company’s operations.
Achievement of corporate goals to protect environmental values, human rights, the health and socio-economic wellbeing of communities can better be realised when businesses adopt internal accountability and incentive mechanisms for performance, which can be applied to corporate-level decision-makers as well as site-level managers and workers. Such actions can help to improve operational level performance and attitudes about the relevance of the EESG commitments, and help embed them into the company’s culture and values.
The composition of corporate boards and senior management may also influence the successful implementation of EESG goals. Board members and managers of different genders, ethnicities and ages, and a diversity of backgrounds and qualifications, including on economic, environmental and social issues, can contribute to a broad spectrum of knowledge on how external factors may impact the company.
Studies have shown that gender diversity on boards of directors and in senior management positions can lead to better overall financial performance, good corporate governance, greater adherence to global EESG standards, better sustainability performance, enhanced innovation, better risk management, and an improved corporate reputation.
The company has systems in place to hold individual board directors and senior managers accountable for responsible business conduct on ESG issues.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has taken specific measures to ensure that:
a. Clear roles and responsibilities are defined for individual board directors and senior managers for responsible business conduct on ESG issues?
b. Competency requirements are in place for key senior management and board-level positions responsible for ESG issues?
c. Individual board directors and senior managers responsible for such performance are held accountable via documented measures?
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its gender balance at board and senior management levels.
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its interventions (programmes, initiatives, etc) to improve gender balance at senior management level?
c. Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve its gender balance at senior management level?
B.03 Contracts Disclosure
Producing countries issue licenses and develop agreements with companies to explore or exploit mineral resources (e.g., through bids, leases, permits, concession agreements, exploration and exploitation agreements, development agreements). Governments also sign contracts or negotiate agreements with companies to establish various terms and conditions related to mineral development, such as the financial benefits that a country will receive from taxes, production-sharing, profit-sharing and royalties; provisions related to critical infrastructure or other investments; and terms that can have implications for citizens such as environmental protection measures or rights related to land use or the displacement of local communities.
Governments bear the responsibility of managing their country’s resources in a manner that is in the interest of national development and the wellbeing of the people. Unfortunately, corruption, lack of information or institutional capacity challenges have prevented some countries from negotiating the best deals for their citizens – often resulting in the loss of millions or billions of dollars in potential revenue.
The contracts governing mining or other extractive projects may constitute the most significant rules governing the benefits received by producing countries and affected communities, and yet, these public-interest documents are often hidden from public view. According to a 2015 report by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, while some countries publish contracts, transparency is not universal. In some cases there are legal or contractual prohibitions on disclosure, and in others, even though laws support disclosure it is only partially done, or is not occurring at all.
Contract disclosure, however, is increasingly being recognised as necessary to enable the responsible management and good governance of natural resources, and to promote growth and economic development by ensuring a level playing field for companies. By systematically making contracts publicly available, government officials have more tools and a stronger incentive to negotiate contracts that ensure that their countries receive an equitable share of the benefits from mineral development. Contract transparency enables civil society to play a greater role in the debate over how developing countries manage their non-renewable resources, and can also help companies and governments demonstrate to citizens the value of mining projects and what are realistic income expectations over time. In addition to disclosure of the contracts themselves, disclosure of related documents (including, for example, records of the allocation and award process, as well as information about contract terms and their implementation) can enable stronger accountability and transparency.
A growing number of mining companies and associations publicly support the practice of contract publication, arguing that it ensures a level playing field for companies and helps increase the quality of their relationship with society at large and more effectively match citizen expectations. Some companies are also taking leadership roles in advancing transparency by disclosing contracts in countries where it is not required, and others are proactively including exception clauses in contracts with governments that enable public disclosure.
The company publicly discloses all the legal titles that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources on its mine sites.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses all the legal titles (e.g. contracts, permits, licences, leases, conventions, agreements) that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources on its mine sites?
b. Makes these documents freely available on its company website?
c. Publicly discloses these documents as full-text documents without redactions or omissions?
B.04 Tax Transparency
Mining-related taxes are a significant and critically important source of income for mineral-rich countries. Revenues from taxes allow countries to pay for essential public services and infrastructure. In the case of developing countries, a solid tax base can reduce reliance on foreign aid, enabling countries to have a greater say in their own development. If managed carefully, the taxes received over the lifecycle of a mine can fund economic and social development initiatives that will continue to generate benefits long after the mining operations have ceased.
There is ample evidence that many producing countries are failing to collect a significant proportion of taxes from extractive industries, especially from companies with operations in many countries. Companies are able to avoid paying taxes through questionable but nominally legal tactics, such as transfer pricing manipulation (by shifting profits to subsidiaries in low-tax or secrecy jurisdictions), trade mispricing (by under-declaring the value of products being exported) or through the use of complex ownership structures. Tax evasion may also occur through illegal activities, such as smuggling.
Developing countries may also lose out on tax revenues by offering incentives such as tax holidays or reduced tax rates. Often, tax incentives in producing countries are not guided by proper cost-benefit analyses but are driven instead by the pressure to create a more attractive investment climate than the next country, and given the location-specific nature of mining operations there are numerous examples showing that investment would have occurred even without tax incentives. Although not illegal, overly generous or ill-conceived tax incentives may be viewed with suspicion, create legitimacy issues for governments and companies, and do nothing to improve the investment climate in a country.
Much work needs to be done to establish tax policies, structures and enforcement capacity in a manner that both attracts investment and delivers economic benefits to the country. There is no single definition of tax transparency, but it generally includes the disclosure of information on how much profit a company makes in each country where it operates and how much taxes it pays in each country, and reporting on tax strategies, such as its approach to taxation, details on management of tax risk and tax planning, and information on tax havens.
Increasingly, global companies are recognising that tax-related policy commitments and proactive disclosure of tax strategies and practices at a country level, are crucial to building and maintaining relationships and credibility with investors and producing countries, and fostering a stable investment climate in the countries where they operate.
The company practices tax transparency in all its tax jurisdictions.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it publicly:
a. Discloses its corporate structure mentioning all tax jurisdictions where it has registered entity(ies) and under what names (e.g. those of subsidiary or branch entities) it is known in that place?
b. Reports on its approach to tax transparency, including its strategy relating to its presence in any low-tax jurisdictions?
c. Discloses all tax benefits and tax holidays received at local and national levels in all tax jurisdictions where it has registered entity(ies)?
B.05 Beneficial Ownership
The identities of the people who ultimately own, control and reap the profits from a mining company’s activities - the beneficial owners - are not always disclosed. In some cases they are hidden behind a chain of corporate or private entities that spans multiple countries.
When ownership of a company is opaque it creates avenues for corruption, tax evasion, money laundering and other types of financial misconduct, which can then lead to negative economic, environmental or social impacts. For example, an individual with an ownership stake in a company may be in a position to unduly influence the granting of government contracts, mining licences or permits to unqualified companies, or approve overly lenient terms and conditions. Knowing the identity of the beneficial owners isimportant both to deter corruption and to ensure that a company that has obtained a license has the intention and necessary financial and technical expertise to develop, operate and close a mining project in a responsible manner.
Governments, financial institutions, voluntary initiatives and even mining company executives are increasingly advocating for and moving towards increased transparency in the beneficial ownership of companies. For example, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has put in place requirements that by 2020 “all implementing countries have to ensure that all oil, gas and mining companies that bid for, operate or invest in extractive projects in their countries disclose their real owners,” and reveal the level of ownership and details about how ownership or control is exerted (e.g., through a percentage ownership of shares in the company, or control through contractual arrangements or powers of attorney).
Proactive disclosure of beneficial ownership is fast becoming standard practice within the extractive industry. Such disclosure demonstrates commitment to transparency and to the integrity of mineral licensing and contracting processes. It will also help to build greater trust from mining stakeholders, help avoid the risks of corruption and tax evasion, and enable governments to better assess the credibility of mining proposals, thereby improving the investment climate for the mining sector globally.
The company publicly discloses its ultimate beneficial owners.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it publicly:
a. Discloses the names of the individuals that are its ultimate beneficial owner(s) (i.e. not only direct shareholders), specifying any threshold ownership level applied to this disclosure?
b. Discloses how ownership is held and how control is exercised?
c. Identifies any beneficiaries who are politically exposed persons and discloses regular updates of information?
B.06 Payments to Producing Countries
Governments grant mining companies the right to explore and exploit mineral resources, and, in exchange, companies pay taxes, royalties, license fees, bonuses, or make other contributions to compensate a country for the minerals being extracted. The payments made by mining companies can be a significant source of revenue for developing countries, and have the potential to fuel economic growth and social development.
Information on payments to governments is often not publicly available. Greater transparency from mining companies would help governments and citizens know if companies are meeting their contractual obligations, and it would enable companies to demonstrate their economic contributions to workers, local communities, and to the national economy at large.
It is generally agreed that transparency of payments made by extractive companies to governments can enhance good governance by removing conditions that enable corruption and misuse of revenues. Better management of mineral revenues, in turn, increases the potential to reduce poverty and foster sustainable economies. Disclosure of payments is also a way for countries to reduce political risk and create a more stable investment environment.
In the past decade efforts to increase payments transparency have gained traction. In particular, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, a global standard that promotes open and accountable management of oil gas and mineral resources, and regulations in the European Union and Canada, have created legal obligations for many companies to report payments made to national and sub-national government bodies, and to disclose these payments for each country where they operate.
Project-level disclosures are also becoming standard practice in many developed nations, and there are calls for similar project by-project reporting in other regions. Communities located close to mines experience a wide range of social and environmental impacts, yet often they do not receive adequate funds to alleviate impacts and promote economic growth, even when they are legally entitled to a percentage of the revenue generated by mining projects.
Access to both country-level and project-level revenue data allows local governments to better monitor company compliance with contract obligations, and enables local communities to track their entitlements and hold their governments accountable if revenues are not being appropriately allocated.
In countries that do not yet have project-level requirements, companies that demonstrate a willingness to disclose payments, can increase trust and support and enable producing country communities to become better informed about the revenues received from mining and how these are being spent.
The company publicly discloses all payments it makes to sub-national and national governments, providing disaggregated data on a project-level basis.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses project-level disaggregated information on all the payments made to sub-national and national governments?
b. Makes this information freely available on the company’s main website?
c. Updates this information on a yearly basis?
B.07 Lobbying Practices
In many countries lobbying plays a prominent role in policy making. Private lobbyists, industry groups and civil society organisations work in a variety of ways to influence politicians and decision-makers. Lobbying, however, is often highly unregulated, creating the potential for powerful interests to exert undue influence through corrupt or otherwise questionable practices. The general lack of transparency and accountability around lobbying creates suspicion that companies, either independently or through industry bodies, are advocating for rules that are not in society’s best interest.
Mining companies can take proactive steps to help foster greater integrity and trust in public decision-making processes and elicit greater trust from stakeholders. For example, they can voluntarily disclose information related to lobbying policies, practices and political contributions. They can also disclose lobbying positions, which not only demonstrates a willingness to be transparent, but may also reveal areas of common ground with stakeholders, and present opportunities for working together to develop public policies that can serve affected communities, producing countries, and the mining industry alike.
While lobbying is a legitimate activity and an important part of the democratic process it is not the only avenue for mining companies to influence mining policy and institutional or economic reforms. Many mining companies are engaged in partnerships with governments and other stakeholders to help increase the capacity of producing country governments to manage mineral resources and develop economic opportunities.
Increased transparency in lobbying and engagement in multi stakeholder dialogues to improve mineral transparency and resource governance are important means to building stakeholder trust, combating bribery and corruption, and creating a more stable and attractive climate for investment.
Where applicable, the company publicly discloses its lobbying practices and positions in all jurisdictions.
Where applicable, can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it publicly:
a. Discloses the roles and responsibilities for those involved in its lobbying activities in all jurisdictions?
b. Discloses the subject matter of its lobbying activities and the outcomes being sought?
c. Discloses the names of public officials or institutions being engaged?
B.08 Responsible Contracting and Sourcing
Increasingly, there is a global expectation that businesses not only demonstrate a high level of human rights, social and environmental responsibility in their own actions, but also demand the same of their business partners and supply chains.
Mining companies often contract with firms to deliver specialised services such as welding repairs, mechanical work, and facility maintenance. Security services are also often contracted out. In the past decade, labour shortages or cost-cutting efforts have increased the use of contracted workers for core mining operations as well.
The use of contracted labour has implications for mining companies. Hiring workers via a contractor may present occupational health and safety challenges that must be managed. Also, poor labour, social or environmental practices by contractors create reputational and financial risks for mining companies. For example, discrepancies in wages and working conditions between workers and contractors are of concern due to issues of inherent inequality, and also because they have led to violent protests and mine shutdowns.
Mining companies also face risks related to the practices of their suppliers, such as interruptions in supply and reputational damage resulting from accidents, labour challenges, corruption, association with armed groups or illegal activity, human rights abuses, community protests or legal actions related to supplier non-compliance with social or environmental regulations.
Companies can minimise risks to workers, communities, the environment and their own reputations by assessing the social, environmental, labour and human rights risks associated with suppliers and contractors, and ensuring that contractors, sub contractors and suppliers commit to and implement high social, environmental and ethical standards in their activities and throughout their own supply chains.
This approach is increasingly being taken by leading mining companies. For example, numerous mining companies have codes of conduct that apply equally to employees, contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers, although often these codes are non-binding. As a result, some mining companies are now incorporating social and environmental requirements into bilateral contracts to create legally binding obligations. Some companies also carry out audits to assess compliance and evaluate how well contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers are managing their own impacts and those that may be occurring within their supply chains.
In addition to formalising expectations in agreements, mining companies are investing in the training of contractors, sub contractors and suppliers to help them meet the company’s requirements. These programmes are mutually beneficial: mining companies reduce their labour and supply chain risks and create more stable, reliable relationships; meanwhile, suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors can reduce their own risks, build capacity and potentially gain access to more competitive supply chain finance.
Producing countries stand to benefit from these initiatives, as well. Home-grown businesses that can meet high social and environmental standards will be better able to compete and integrate into responsible global supply chains. Moreover, if mine contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers are held to high environmental, social, human rights and labour standards, such as ensuring safe workplaces and paying living wages, workers and their families will be better off, and mining will have greater positive benefits for local economies and communities.
The company has systems in place to identify and assess any human rights, labour and environmental risks associated with its suppliers and contractors.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to identify and assess risks related to its suppliers and contractors on:
a. Human rights issues?
b. Labour issues?
c. Environmental issues?
Scoring Framework:
B.01.1 The company commits to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption?
The company commits to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption in a formal document which covers all of the company’s activities and is endorsed by senior management.
The company commits to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption in a formal document which covers all of the company’s activities, but there is no evidence that this commitment is endorsed by senior management
OR
The company commits to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company commits to prevent bribery and corruption in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but the commitment does not cover all forms of bribery and corruption.
The company refers to the need for preventing all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption, but does not make a clear commitment in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management.
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment and there is detailed information on its actual scope, role and accountability.
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment but there is limited information on its actual scope, role and accountability
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company briefly refers to a function at the senior management level and/or Board level for carrying it out this commitment, but does not provide any additional information
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company scored 0.5 under a).
c. Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
The company has company-wide, operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on preventing bribery and corruption
OR
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/ or workshops related to its commitment to prevent bribery and corruption, and there is detailed evidence of the specific financial and/or staffing resources committed.
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/ or workshops related to its commitment to prevent bribery and corruption, and there is detailed evidence of the specific financial and/or staffing resources committed.
OR
The company has company-wide operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on preventing bribery and corruption, but only on some limited aspects of bribery and corruption.
OR
The company allocates financial and/or staffing resources to implement this commitment (awareness/training programmes/workshops and/or responsible teams) but not on a company-wide basis
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company has company-wide requirement for the commitment of financial and/ or staffing resources but there is limited evidence of these resources having been .
OR
The company allocates resources to investigate and address allegations and violations of relevant policy, but there is no evidence of resources committed to prevent bribery and corruption
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company scored 0.5 under a).
B.01.2 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on anti-bribery and corruption. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on its prevention of bribery and corruption, including number and nature of incidents and actions taken in response?
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) across successive time periods including number, nature and actions taken in response
OR
The company reports that no corruption-related incidents happened at all within the assessment period and the data is compared over successive time periods.
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on two of the three dimensions only: number, nature or actions taken in response
OR
The company reports that no corruption-related incidents happened at all within the assessment period, but the data is not compared across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) across successive time periods including number, and nature and actions taken in response, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company reports that no corruption-related incidents happened at all within the assessment period and the data is compared over successive time periods but does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on one of the three dimensions only: number, nature or actions taken in response
OR
The company reports that no incidents happened within the assessment period on some corruption-related topics only
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on two of the three dimensions only: number, nature or actions taken in response, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company reports that no corruption-related incidents happened at all within the assessment period, but the data is not compared across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities.
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement.
c. Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption, and has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to preventall direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
B.01.3 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms for reporting concerns about unethical behaviour. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on the functioning and uptake of its whistleblowing mechanisms, including number and nature of incidents and actions taken in response?
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) across successive time periods on number, nature and actions taken in response
OR
The company reports that no incidents were reported at all through its whistleblowing mechanism within the assessment period and the data is compared over successive time period.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on two of the three dimensions only: number, nature or actions taken in response
OR
The company reports that no incidents were reported at all through its whistleblowing mechanism, but the data is not compared across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) across successive time periods on number, nature and actions taken in response, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company reports that no incidents were reported through its whistleblowing mechanism within the assessment period and the data is compared over successive period but does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) across successive time periods on number, nature and actions taken in response, but the data is aggregated between all reporting channels, and not specific only to whistleblowing mechanism/s
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on one of the three dimensions only: number, nature or actions taken in response
OR
The company reports that no incidents were reported through its whistleblowing mechanism on some topics only
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on two of the three dimensions only: number, nature or actions taken in response, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company reports that no incidents were reported through its whistleblowing mechanism, but the data is not compared across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on two of the three dimensions only: number, nature or actions taken in response, but the data is aggregated between all reporting channels, and not specific only to whistleblowing mechanism/s
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) across successive time periods on number, nature and actions taken in response, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities, but the data is aggregated between all reporting channels, and not specific only to whistleblowing mechanism/s
OR
The company reports that no incidents were reported through its whistleblowing mechanism within the assessment period and the data is compared over successive time period but does not cover all of the company’s activities, but the data is aggregated between all reporting channels, and not specific only to whistleblowing mechanism/s
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement.
c.Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms, and has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, t there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
OR
The company discloses information of reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses some information on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its whistleblowing mechanisms, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
B.02.1 The company has systems in place to hold individual board directors and senior managers accountable for responsible business conduct on ESG issues. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has taken specific measures to ensure that:
a. Clear roles and responsibilities are defined for individual board directors and senior managers for responsible business conduct on ESG issues?
The company has defined clear roles and responsibilities at the corporate level which include both board-level and senior-management-level individuals for responsible business conduct on all the following issues: environmental, social and human rights.
The company has defined clear roles and responsibilities at the corporate level which include both board-level and senior-management-level individuals for responsible business conduct on only one or two of the following issues: environmental, social or human rights.
The company has defined roles and responsibilities at the corporate level which include both board-level and senior-management-level individuals for responsible business conduct but their scope is unclear.
b. Competency requirements are in place for key senior management and board-level positions responsible for ESG issues?
The company has competency requirements in place for key senior management and board-level positions responsible for all the following issues: environmental, social and human rights.
The company has competency requirements in place for key senior management and board-level positions responsible for only one or two of the following issues: environmental, social or human rights.
The company mentions qualifications and/or experience and/or continuous training programmes related to key senior management and board-level positions responsible for environmental, social and human rights issues, but there is no information on actual competency requirements.
c.Individual board directors and senior managers responsible for such performance are held accountable via documented measures?
The company discloses information on indicators related to performance on environmental, social and human rights issues which are included in the remuneration incentive scheme for responsible individuals at both the board and the senior-management level.
The company discloses information on indicators related to performance on environmental, social and human rights issues which are included in the remuneration incentive scheme for responsible individuals at either the board or the senior-management level
OR
The company mentions indicators related to performance on environmental, social and human rights issues which are included in the remuneration incentive scheme for responsible individuals at both the board or the senior-management level, but there is limited information on the actual metrics and their implementation, beyond narrative description.
The company mentions indicators related to performance on environmental, social and human rights issues which are included in a remuneration incentive scheme, mited information on the individuals it applies to and/or the actual scope covered by such indicators.
B.02.2 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its gender balance at board and senior management levels. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels?
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is disclosed against targets and compared across successive time periods.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is compared against targets, but not disclosed across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but not disclosed against targets
OR
The company discloses company-wide data on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is disclosed against targets and compared across successive time periods, but the data is outdated (older than the assessment period)
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is disclosed against targets and compared across successive time periods, but does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on the percentage of women at board and/or senior management levels, but the data is not disclosed against targets and not compared across successive time periods.
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is compared against targets, but not disclosed across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but not disclosed against targets and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses data on the percentage of women at board and senior management levels, and the data is disclosed against targets and compared across successive time periods, but the data is outdated (older than the assessment period) and does not cover all of the company’s activities.
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its interventions (programmes, initiatives, etc) to improve gender balance at senior management level?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its interventions to improve gender balance at senior management level.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its interventions to improve gender balance at senior management level.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its interventions (programmes, initiatives, etc) to improve gender balance at senior management level are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement.
c.Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve its gender balance at senior management level?
The company has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its interventions to improve gender balance at senior management level.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its interventions (programmes, initiatives, etc) to improve gender balance at senior management level, and has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its interventions (programmes, initiatives, etc) to improve gender balance at senior management level, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
B.03.1 The company publicly discloses all the legal titles that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources on its mine sites. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses all the legal titles (e.g. contracts, permits, licences, leases, conventions, agreements) that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources on its mine sites?
The company discloses the names of all the institutions or public officials being engaged.
The company discloses the names of some institutions or public officials being engaged.
The company discloses the legal titles that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources for at least one mine site, but for less than half of its mine sites.
b. Makes these documents freely available on its corporate website?
The company discloses the legal titles for all its mine sites on its corporate website.
The company discloses the legal titles for all its mine sites, but they are only available on various subsidiaries’ websites
OR
The company discloses the legal titles for some of its mine sites on its corporate website.
The company discloses the legal titles for some of its mine sites on various subsidiaries’ websites.
c.Publicly discloses these documents as full-text documents without redactions or omissions?
The company discloses in full-text the legal titles that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources for all its mine sites.
The company discloses in full-text the legal titles that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources for at least half of its mine sites, but no for all mine sites.
The company discloses in full-text the legal titles that grant it the rights to extract mineral resources for at least one mine site but less than half of the mine sites.
B.04.1 The company practices tax transparency in all its tax jurisdictions. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it publicly:
a. Discloses its corporate structure mentioning all tax jurisdictions where it has registered entity(ies) and under what names (e.g. those of subsidiary or branch entities) it is known in that place?
The company discloses its corporate structure, mentioning all tax jurisdictions where it has registered entity(ies) and under what names it is known in that place.
The company discloses its corporate structure, mentioning only some of the tax jurisdictions where it has registered entities and under what names it is known in that place
OR
The company discloses its corporate structure, mentioning all the names of its registered entites but not the tax jurisdictions where they are registered.
n/a
b. Reports on its approach to tax transparency, including its strategy relating to its presence in any low-tax jurisdictions?
The company reports on its approach to tax transparency, including its strategy relating to its presence in any low-tax jurisdictions.
The company reports on its approach to tax transparency, but does not disclose its strategy relating to its presence in any low-tax jurisdictions.
The company mentions tax transparency, but does not report on its approach to tax transparency.
c.Discloses all tax benefits and tax holidays received at local and national levels in all tax jurisdictions where it has registered entity(ies)?
The company discloses data on all tax benefits, tax holidays, tax relief and tax credits it receives at both local and national levels.
The company discloses data on all tax benefits, tax holidays, tax relief and tax credits it receives but in an aggregated form, without information on local and national levels.
The company discloses limited information on some of the tax benefits or tax credits it receives.
B.05.1 The company publicly discloses its ultimate beneficial owners. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it publicly:
a. Discloses the names of the individuals that are its ultimate beneficial owner(s) (i.e. not only direct shareholders), specifying any threshold ownership level applied to this disclosure?
The company discloses all the names of its ultimate individual beneficial owners – or controlling States in case of SOE.
The company only discloses the names of some of its ultimate individual beneficial owners – or controlling States in case of SOE – owning together at least 50% of the company.
The company only discloses the name of one of its ultimate individual beneficial owner – or controlling State in case of SOE.
b. Discloses how ownership is held and how control is exercised?
The company discloses information on how all its individual beneficial owners – or controlling States in case of SOE - hold ownership and on how they exercise control over.
The company discloses information on how all its individual beneficial owners – or controlling States in case of SOE - hold ownership, but does not provide information on how they exercise control over.
The company discloses limited information on how some of its individual beneficial owners – or controlling State in case of SOE - hold ownership, but does not provide information on how they exercise control over.
c.Identifies any beneficiaries who are politically exposed persons and discloses regular updates of information?
The company discloses information on any beneficiaries who are politically exposed persons and discloses regular updates of information.
The company discloses information on any beneficiaries who are politically exposed persons, but does not disclose regular updates of information.
The company is fully or partly State-owned and discloses limited information on the State body/ies that hold control over it.
B.06.1 The company publicly discloses all payments it makes to sub-national and national governments, providing disaggregated data on a project-level basis. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses project-level disaggregated information on all the payments made to sub-national and national governments?
The company discloses its payments made to sub-national and national governments (i.e.: in all its producing countries), on a project-disaggregated basis.
OR
The project discloses all its payments made to national governments, on a projectdisaggregated e to sub-national governments, but not on a project-disaggregated basis.
The company discloses all its payments made to national governments, on a projectdisaggregated at the sub-national level
OR
The company discloses its payments made to national and sub-national governments, on a project-disaggregated basis, but not for all its producing countries.
OR
The company discloses all its payments made to national and sub-national governments, but not on a project-disaggregated basis.
The company discloses some of its payments made to sub-national and/or national governments.
OR
The company discloses all its payments made to national governments but not on a project-disaggregated basis, and not systematically showing disaggregation at the sub-national level.
OR
The company discloses an aggregated figure for all its payments to governments.
b. Makes this information freely available on its corporate website?
The company discloses on its corporate website all its payments made to sub-national and national governments,on a project-disaggregated basis .
The company discloses all its payments made to sub-national and national governments on a project-disaggregated basis, but these are only available on subsidiaries’ websites
OR
The company discloses on its corporate website some of its payments made to sub-national and national governments, on a project-disaggregated basis
OR
The company discloseson its corporate website all its payments made to national governments, on a project-disaggregated basis, but does not disclose on its corporate website all its payments made to sub-national governments.
The company discloses some of its payments made to sub-national and/or national governments on subsidiaries’ websites.
B.07.1 Where applicable, the company publicly discloses its lobbying practices and positions in all jurisdictions. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it publicly:
a. Discloses the roles and responsibilities for those involved in its lobbying activities in all jurisdictions?
The company discloses the names and responsibilities of all its lobbyists.
The company discloses the names and responsibilities of its lobbyists, but the evidence does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company refers to active lobbyists but does not disclose any names
OR
The company discloses the names of its lobbyists without their responsibilities (or only limited information) and the evidence does not cover all of the company’s activities.
b. Discloses the subject matter of its lobbying activities and the outcomes being sought?
The company discloses all the subject matters of all its lobbying activities and all the outcomes being sought.
The company discloses some of the subject matters of its lobbying activities and the outcomes being sought but the evidence does not cover all of company’s activities.
The company discloses some of the subject matters of its lobbying activities without clear information on the outcomes being sought and the evidence does not cover all of the company’s activities.
c.Discloses the names of public officials or institutions being engaged?
The company discloses the names of all the institutions or public officials being engaged.
The company discloses the names of some institutions or public officials being engaged.
The company discloses the nature of institutions or officials engaged in the context of lobbying activities, but does not disclose any names
OR
The company discloses the name of one institution or public official being engaged.
B.08.1 The company has systems in place to identify and assess any human rights, labour and environmental risks associated with its suppliers and contractors. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to identify and assess risks related to its suppliers and contractors on:
a. Human rights issues?
The company has company-wide systems in place to carry out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on human rights issues, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to carry out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on human rights issues, but there is limited evidence of the scope and content of these systems
The company provides evidence of only one or two cases of carrying out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on human rights issues, and there is no evidence of company-wide approaches or systems in place
OR
The company mentions that it carries out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on human rights issues, but does not provide any additional information.
b. Labour issues?
The company has company-wide systems in place to carry out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on labour issues, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to carry out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on labour issues, but there is limited evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company provides evidence of only one or two cases of carrying out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on labour issues, and there is no evidence of company-wide approaches or systems in place
OR
The company mentions that it carries out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on labour issues, but does not provide any additional information.
c.Environmental issues?
The company has company-wide systems in place to carry out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on environmental issues, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to carry out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on environmental issues, but there is limited evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company provides evidence of only one or two cases of carrying out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on environmental issues, and there is no evidence of company-wide approaches or systems in place
OR
The company mentions that it carries out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on environmental issues, but does not provide any additional information.
Lifecycle Management
The lifespan of a mine can be decades long, and there are a number of discrete lifecycle phases in the responsible development and closure of a mine. The process begins with mineral exploration. If a potentially viable ore deposit is identified, a company may then design and investigate the technical and financial feasibility of developing a mine. If a corporate decision is made to move forward with a project (See C.02), and the appropriate regulatory approvals are received, the mine enters the development or implementation phase, which involves constructing and operating the mine. Finally, when the ore has been extracted, the mine enters a closure phase, which can last many years or even decades if there are long-term environmental issues remaining at the site.
Due diligence should be carried out throughout all lifecycle phases, to ensure that risks to the company and communities and the environment are minimised, that opportunities for efficient, sustained extraction are maximised, and that safeguards are put in place to guarantee the ongoing and post-mining social and economic health of affected communities and protection of the environment. In particular, it is critical that companies work with communities and workers to plan ahead for the transition from the construction to operations phase, and operations to closure phase, to ensure that communities and workers have viable social and economic futures throughout the mine lifecycle and when the mine closes (See C.05). When a mining company decides to suspend its operations for a given or undetermined period and place the asset under “care and maintenance”, a similar approach to just transition will ensure workers are prepared and provided with alternatives or mitigation measures (See E.06).
In some cases, a single mining company will not shepherd a mining project through its entire lifecycle. Whenever there is a transfer of mine ownership, a due diligence process is necessary to ensure that risks and liabilities are disclosed and understood, and that adequate financial security is in place to prevent and manage social and environmental impacts (See C.06).
Lifecycle Management
Community Wellbeing
Mining projects have the potential to transform communities in positive and negative ways. Economic benefits may be created through the provision of jobs and opportunities for local businesses to supply services or products to the mine. On the other hand, mining may also diminish or destroy natural resources that provide food, livelihoods and services to communities. The social character of a community may also shift with the influx of migrant mine labour, and mining-related income and benefits may be distributed in an inequitable manner, which can create conflicts within communities and even families. Together, the environmental and social impacts related to mining may result in the infringement of multiple human rights.
As with any long-term relationship, company-community relationships are complex. Mining companies are often faced with the challenge of satisfying the wishes of disparate groups, and without thoughtful planning and interventions it is inevitable that conflicts will arise. Companies that approach communities early in the project lifecycle and demonstrate a willingness to engage with all stakeholders in an open, respectful manner are more likely to build trust, and those that put in place effective systems to receive and remedy community complaints will be more likely to maintain positive relationships and successfully prevent or remedy human rights risks and impacts.
The creation of positive economic, environmental and social benefits requires active engagement with communities throughout the mine lifecycle. Through ongoing collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders including marginalised and vulnerable groups in the planning, design and implementation of mine-sponsored community investments and mining-related opportunities, mining companies can better ensure that they will leave behind healthy, viable communities when a mine closes.
Community Wellbeing
Not available for 2021
Working Conditions
Large-scale mining operations can provide jobs for hundreds of workers (employees and contract workers). However, “decent work,” as defined by the International Labour Organization, encompasses more than a steady job. It involves work that delivers a fair income (See 05); safety, health and security in the workplace (See E.01); social protection for families; freedom for workers to express their concerns, organise and participate in the decisions that affect their lives (See E.04 and E.07); and equality of treatment and opportunity for advancement for all workers (See E.03).
Many of these concepts are entrenched as internationally recognised human rights in eight International Labour Organization core conventions that protect the fundamental rights of workers. Globally, however, hazardous working conditions persist, child labour or forced labour can be found at mines and in mining supply chains (See E.02), and discrimination and gender inequality remain a challenge at many mining operations.
Some mining companies recognise that respecting the rights of workers and promoting decent work are good for business and society. Mine productivity improves when workers are physically well, and when they feel respected and supported in the work that they do. Additionally, through the creation of safe and secure jobs and training opportunities mining companies can help to reduce poverty and provide equitable opportunities for economic and social development.
Working Conditions
Not available for 2021
Environmental Responsibility
Large-scale mining typically involves the removal ofvegetation and soil, the diversion of watercourses, and the movement of massive amounts of rock. These activities can permanently transform landscapes and ecosystems, and create temporary impacts such as noise, and water and air emissions, which in turn, may lead to impacts on community health (See D.06).
When poorly managed, mining can have devastating impacts on the environment, through the catastrophic failures of waste facilities (see F.02), creation of pollution issues that can last hundreds of years, or permanent destruction of biodiversity and ecosystem services upon which communities depend (See F.05).
Responsible mine management requires that companies understand the important environmental values and take steps to avoid impacting threatened ecosystems and resources that are of high significance to the social and economic wellbeing of communities. Where impacts are not preventable, a ‘mitigation hierarchy approach’ can be followed, which requires that unavoidable impacts be avoided and minimised to the greatest extent possible, damaged landscapes and ecosystems are restored, and companies compensate for remaining impacts (See F.01 and F.05).
Additionally, a landscape approach to assessing the impacts of a mining project can help a company understand a mine’s incremental impacts when there are other major developments in a region, and plan appropriate mitigation strategies to ensure that the ts do not put human health at risk or cause unacceptable damage to the environment (See F.01).
Environmental Responsibility
F.01 Environmental Stewardship
Environmental stewardship is the comprehensive understanding and effective management of critical environmental risks and opportunities related to climate change, emissions, waste management, resource consumption, water conservation, and biodiversity and ecosystem services protection.
According to the UN Global Compact, traditional corporate environmental management approaches, based largely on compliance and narrow risk assessments, will not be sufficient to successfully address major 21st century environmental challenges such as water scarcity, mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change, and preventing further loss of global biodiversity. Tackling such issues requires, instead, a comprehensive, cyclical approach to environmental management.
Companies are increasingly adopting a cyclical “Plan, Do, Check, Act” management approach to environmental protection. Basic elements in this type of environmental management system (EMS) include: setting environmental objectives, assessing potential environmental risks and impacts, preventing and mitigating adverse impacts, carrying out environmental monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and reporting on its actions and effectiveness. Environmental management plans then guide the necessary actions, and are updated when M&E or changes in mining processes necessitate more effective strategies to meet environmental objectives.
While robust EMS processes are important, they are not necessarily enough to guarantee environmental protection that also meets the needs of affected communities. There is increasing recognition of the interconnectedness of the environmental, social and economic challenges confronting the world; and that solutions aimed at eradicating poverty and promoting environmental protection and sustainable economic growth require integrated planning and assessment, and a management approach that takes into consideration the wide-ranging direct, indirect, induced and cumulative impacts that a particular project can have in the broader landscape and regional contexts.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool, often required by law but also used voluntarily by some companies, to assess the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed project, and evaluate alternative project designs. Regular updates of these assessments (rather than just a one-off EIA) will be required in order to inform companies’ environmental management strategies. Companies committed to effectively managing their environmental impacts will implement a mitigation hierarchy that prioritises the prevention of negative impacts to the extent possible, minimises unavoidable impacts, and restores damaged landscapes and resources to functioning and productive ecosystems that can support plants, wildlife and human activities. Finally, the hierarchy requires that companies compensate or offset any remaining residual impacts.
Increasingly, the scope of environmental impact assessment has been expanding beyond the physical environment. Integrated assessments that combine health, social, economic, human rights, cultural and psychological well-being as well as the physical, biological and geochemical environments, provide a more holistic understanding of the complex interrelationships between the human and natural environments that affect environmental and human health and wellbeing. This awareness helps to ensure that, where possible, mitigation strategies avoid simply trading off one problem for another.
Additionally, planning at the larger landscape or watershed scale helps governments, companies and communities to identify competing land or resource-use objectives and understand the negative cumulative effects of multiple developments. This information, in turn, supports more optimal design and implementation of projects to maximise current and future environmental, as well as economic and social benefits. Increasingly, governments are developing their own national Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) to ensure that environmental aspects are considered effectively in the development of policies and programmes. This offers additional frameworks for companies to harmonize their own EIAs with national priorities and areas of interests, complementing other economic alignments.
Stakeholder engagement is an essential component of credible, effective environmental management. Stakeholders, including members of affected communities and representatives from relevant government agencies, should be included in assessment processes, the development of appropriate mitigation strategies and monitoring programmes.
Together, the integration of environmental management with broader societal considerations, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and public disclosure of environmental management activities can enhance a company’s accountability, and increase the likelihood that its efforts will support the health and livelihoods of communities and leave positive environmental legacies. Effective environmental stewardship, in addition to protecting environmental and social values, is likely to create improved stakeholder relations, increased worker engagement, financial benefits, and a competitive advantage for companies.
The company commits to manage its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to manage its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach?
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
c. Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations conduct and disclose regular assessments of its environmental impacts through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio economic and environmental impacts.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to ensure its operations:
a. Identify environmental baseline conditions and changes, through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio economic and environmental impacts?
b. Identify and assess the environmental impacts of their activities, through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts?
c. Regularly and systematically present and discuss the results of their assessments of environmental impacts with local communities?
F.02 Tailings Management
The excavation or blasting of the rock mass which contains the minerals and metals mined results in large amounts of waste rock of little or no economic value. The remaining ore, where concentrations of minerals and metals are above the “cut-off grade”, goes through a milling and beneficiation process, to extract the minerals and metals from the ore. These operations often use chemicals and generate enormous volumes of residual waste. The wastes, known as tailings, are composed primarily of pulverised rock, water and processing chemicals. Typically, tailings are piped into large surface impoundments, where they are held in by earthen dams. The fluids are recycled, or they evaporate or drain out over time. When tailings storage facilities are full, the wastes may undergo reclamation, such as the planting of vegetation, to stabilise the area.
There are a variety of risks and impacts associated with tailings storage facilities. Tailings usually contain residual processing chemicals and elevated levels of metals, often resulting from the ore characteristics itself. Facilities are prone to seepage, which can result in the contamination of ground and surface water. Impoundments may cover areas that were previously productive farmland or wildlife habitat. Dry tailings can create serious dust problems for nearby communities. And unstable tailings dams can fail catastrophically, releasing large quantities of waste that can smother rivers, bury homes, destroy livelihoods, and seriously impact the environment and local communities.
The disposal of tailings into water bodies (rivers, lakes, sea) presents particular environmental problems as well as human health risks. For example, elevated levels of metals, such as copper, lead, and arsenic can cause direct acute and chronic toxicity and bioaccumulation in fish tissues that may pose risks to human health. Some companies have developed internal standards that prevent riverine or marine disposal, and several major banks have stated they will not finance companies practising marine and/or riverine tailings disposal.
Recent high-profile tailings dam failures have prompted several mining industry reviews and actions by mining companies and other stakeholders including governments and investors, which are expected to lead to improvements in practices that will help to prevent future disasters.
In addition to ensuring that tailings facilities are planned, designed, constructed and managed to the highest standards by competent professionals, there are other critical management practices that can help prevent and minimise impacts from tailings wastes. These include: assigning accountability and responsibility for tailings management at the highest levels of the company; adopting the best available technology; conducting frequent internal reviews of tailings facility performance and ensuring that corrective actions are implemented on schedule; and enabling independent review of site investigation and selection, design, construction, operation, closure and post-closure of tailings facilities, with public disclosure of the findings.
Furthermore, given that tailings management decisions can have long term implications for the communities and natural resources, it is in the interest of all stakeholders that companies engage with potentially affected communities and external experts when assessing risks related to various tailing-facility designs, and in the planning, construction and monitoring of tailings waste facilities. Risks associated with tailings can persist for centuries and the systematic disclosure by mining companies of the exact locations and characteristics of all their tailings facilities ensures this public-interest data is accessible for all the stakeholders and documented for the future generations too.
There is a strong incentive for mining companies to reduce the risks associated with tailings facilities. Failures, whether catastrophic dam bursts or the slow seepage of chemicals into water, can lead to significant health and safety risks for local communities, widespread environmental damage and high clean-up and remediation costs that may ultimately fall on producing country governments. Companies implicated in tailings facility mismanagement suffer huge financial losses, face legal action, loss of social licence to operate, and not only bring reputational damage to themselves, but to the mining industry as a whole.
The company commits to not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings?
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
c. Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
Where applicable, the company publicly discloses information about the location and safety of all its tailings storage facilities.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses the number and exact location of all tailings storage facilities (including those currently active and those under rehabilitation or closed)?
b. Publicly discloses the construction methods and hazard categories (based on impact assessments) of each of its tailings storage facilities?
c. Makes these data freely available on its corporate website?
Where applicable, the company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure.
Where applicable, can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure?
b. Carries out third-party audits and/or reviews on the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure?
c. Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these third-party audits, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure?
F.03 Water
Water is a key issue for sustainable development and the growth of economies. It is essential for immediate survival and long term food security, and is intertwined with the development of energy infrastructure. In addition to being a human right, clean water supports healthier and more productive populations and ecosystems.
Water is also a key issue for the global mining industry. Access to a stable water supply is critical for any mining operation, but securing access can be a challenge. As global concerns about water scarcity increase and mines expand into more water-stressed areas, the competition for water resources can create intractable and sometimes violent conflicts between mining companies and communities. These conflicts are often associated with serious human rights abuses, disproportionately suffered by members of affected communities
The sound management of water discharges, which is linked to responsible mine-waste and hazardous materials management, is critical at mines. Mining-related water management involves understanding the current water quality and quantity status and management context in the immediate vicinity of a mine and in the broader catchment or watershed area; assessing the risks to surface water and groundwater from mining activities; and developing and implementing strategies to minimise the risks and impacts on water users and ecosystems. Water quantity and quality should be monitored at the mine site and at downstream locations to determine if mitigation strategies are effective, and whether or not corrective actions might be necessary to improve environmental outcomes.
Increasingly, the mining industry also acknowledges that effective water management relies on positive and transparent engagement with stakeholders. Ongoing dialogue helps communities understand the mine’s water needs, and helps the mining company understand the community’s water use requirements, as well as stakeholders’ needs, expectations and priorities related to water use and water protection.
Transparency around water use and water quality impacts is becoming an expectation for mining stakeholders, and it is now standard practice for companies to report generally on water issues. Some companies, however, are demonstrating leadership around water transparency by making water-monitoring data accessible to affected communities and the general public.
The fear of water contamination can create opposition to mining projects, and actual contamination events can damage livelihoods, destroy positive company-community relations and create short- and long-term costs and financial and legal liabilities for mining companies. Conflicts related to water bring reputational, operational, legal, humanitarian, and financial risks to mining projects. Mining companies that engage with communities in the planning, management and monitoring of water, and are transparent about their water impacts are more likely to establish the trust with communities that is necessary to avoid conflicts and secure the social licence to operate.
Implementing leading social and technical water management practices, such as increasing the efficiency of water use, can also help companies reduce operating costs and potential environmental fines, expedite permitting processes, facilitate mine expansions, secure access to resources (water, ore, land), and preserve or improve a company’s reputation.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations design and implement water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, to address water security in the affected area for current and future water users and the environment.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Has systems in place to ensure its operations develop water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, to respect the water needs and rights of current and future water users and the environment?
b. Has systems in place to ensure its operations consult with potentially-affected water users in the development of these water stewardship strategies and plans?
c. Systematically tracks the implementation of these water stewardship strategies?
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on reducing its water consumption.
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on reducing its water consumption?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption?
c. Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption?
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality.
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality?
c. Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality?
F.04 Noise and Vibration
Noise is a common source of community concern related to mining. During a mine’s operational phase, noise can be generated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and a mine may operate for many years. Potentially significant sources of mining related noise and vibrations include helicopters used during exploration, heavy equipment used during mine construction, drilling, blasting, loading and dumping waste rock, screening and crushing, and mineral transport (e.g., corridors for railways, roads and conveyor belts).
Noise may have adverse effects on human health, including stress-related illnesses, sleep disruption, high blood pressure, hearing loss and speech interference. Noise may also lead to social and behavioural effects, including annoyance, which is a widely accepted indicator of human health effects related to environmental noise. Additionally, vibrations from blasting and heavy truck traffic are often felt by nearby residents, and havebeen linked to, or suspected as the cause of, structural damage to homes located close to mine sites.
Wildlife may also be affected by anthropogenic noise. Mining or other industrial noise sources may cause an increase in stress, disruption of natural behaviours, temporary or permanent hearing damage, changes in breeding success, and avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. The impacts on wildlife may, in turn, have implications for Indigenous Peoples or local communities whose food sources may be affected.
In order to address issues of noise and vibration, mining companies typically include noise assessments as part of their environmental and social impact assessments, and carry out baseline noise studies to gain an understanding of the pre mining noise conditions in communities and the project’s area of operation. Some national or sub-national governments may regulate noise and vibrations. However, even in the absence of regulations, there are internationally accepted standards that can help mining companies gauge acceptable noise and vibration levels at nearby homes, schools, or other noise “receptors.”
There are a variety of mitigation measures that can be employed to minimise the effects of mining-related noise and vibrations on communities and wildlife, including limiting known sources of particularly loud noises or strong vibrations, such as blasting, to daytime hours, as well as muffling or controlling noise and vibrations at their source.
Noise and vibration issues should be discussed during early engagement with stakeholders, and throughout the mine lifecycle. Communities are more likely to be tolerant of mining-related noise and vibrations when companies are transparent and work with them to develop acceptable mitigation strategies. If community concerns are not adequately considered or addressed, these issues can provoke community opposition to mining operations, and create significant strain on community company relationships.
While some noise and vibration mitigation strategies may require an upfront capital investment, they ultimately provide cost savings for the company through increased efficiency and improved occupational health and safety. Effective noise and vibration management also benefits the wider industry by improving community attitudes towards mining activities.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations limit the impacts of noise and vibration on affected communities, structures, properties, and wildlife.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to ensure its operations:
a. Regularly assess, against baseline values, the noise and vibration levels generated by their activities?
b. Develop strategies and plans to limit the impacts of noise and vibration generated by their activities in the surrounding areas?
c. Systematically engage with affected communities and other stakeholders in the development of these strategies?
F.05 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Biological diversity – or biodiversity – refers to the variety of plants, animals and microorganisms that exist, the genes they contain, and the ecosystems of which they are a part. Ecosystems that are genetically diverse and species-rich are more resilient and adaptable to external stresses, and have a greater ability to recover from disturbances such as floods, fires and diseases. Biodiversity plays a role in stabilising the earth’s climate; it contributes to sustainable livelihoods and economies; and creates conditions that enable cultural diversity to thrive.
The maintenance of global biodiversity is particularly relevant for rural communities in developing countries and for Indigenous Peoples, whose livelihoods and survival may be highly dependent on the ecosystems services supported through biodiversity, such as food, nutrients, medicines, fuel, fibre, flood control, clean drinking water and sacred sites.
Mining companies, like other businesses and society as a whole, rely on ecosystems and the services they provide. However, mining also has the potential to directly affect biodiversity, for example through the clearing of vegetation for roads, removal of primary forests and soils to access ore bodies, the conversion of land, wetlands or water-bodies into waste disposal sites, and planned or unplanned discharges of waste products to the environment. There may also be indirect impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services from mining, such as increased pressures on wildlife for trade or bushmeat when mining roads are built in previously inaccessible areas, or intensified clearing of land as a result of the in migration of mine workers or others seeking economic opportunities.
Growing awareness of the potential direct, indirect, induced and cumulative impacts of mining on biodiversity and of the dependencies of companies on biodiversity and ecosystem services is leading many mining companies to carry out biodiversity assessments and develop systems and approaches to avoid critical habitats and key biodiversity areas whenever possible.
Some mining companies are also applying the “mitigation hierarchy” as a means of managing biodiversity risks. The mitigation hierarchy is an internationally recognised framework that prioritises avoidance of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and, if that is not possible, moves to minimisation, restoration and, as a last resort, the offsetting of residual impacts. While impact mitigation is an interactive process throughout the project lifecycle, opportunities for impact avoidance are greatest at the planning phase of development.
Offsetting is the last option in the hierarchy because it comes with a set of risks, including uncertainty of success, economic and governance challenges to sustaining offsets in perpetuity, and the potential for proposed offset projects to be socially or culturally unacceptable to relevant stakeholders. Where offsetting occurs, it should be carefully designed and guided by principles such as replacement of impacted biodiversity on an ecologically-equivalent, or like-for-like or better basis; no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity; consultation with stakeholders to determine acceptable offsets; and creation of long-term mechanisms to fund offset projects.
As with any responsible environmental management system, the identification of risks, development of effective mitigation strategies and monitoring plans include the involvement of relevant stakeholders. Actions may also be designed or reviewed by experienced biologists and other specialists to ensure that mitigation is optimised in accordance with the hierarchy. Increasingly, companies are commissioning independent external audits or oversight to verify whether their biodiversity management strategies are being effectively implemented. Such external oversight is a useful means of building stakeholder trust and confidence that mining activities are not posing significant threats to biodiversity and important ecosystem services.
The business case for responsible biodiversity management is strong. Companies that take a proactive approach to biodiversity and ecosystem services management may experience a competitive advantage as regulatory regimes in areas with increasing pressures on biodiversity shift to more protective policies. Those companies that demonstrate good management practices, including application of the mitigation hierarchy and external audits of their management practices, may secure easier and less costly access to capital, land and resources. Strong approaches to protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services help to build trust with communities, non-governmental organisations, producing country governments and other stakeholders, thus strengthening the company’s social licence to operate.
The company commits to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites and to respect other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites and to respect other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage?
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
c. Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on biodiversity and ecosystem services management.
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on its performance on biodiversity and ecosystem services management?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity and ecosystem services?
c. Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity and ecosystem services?
F.06 Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Climate change is a global issue, but the effects are not equally distributed around the globe or even within individual countries. Developing countries are often disproportionately affected, and Indigenous Peoples, and poor and vulnerable groups within society are especially at risk from the impacts of climate change.
As the globe experiences increasing effects related to climate change, such as changes in precipitation, increased frequency of extreme events, increased temperatures and sea level rise, mining companies are being asked by investors and mine stakeholders to identify and disclose climate-related risks and impacts.
In the minerals and metals mining sector, the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions are directly tied to energy consumption, with emissions primarily produced through the burning of fossil fuels to power buildings and operate mining and processing equipment and vehicles. Mining is an energy intensive undertaking, and future energy consumption is predicted to increase in the mining sector as viable ore deposits become deeper and lower-grade. Coal mining creates additional greenhouse gas emissions such as the release of fugitive methane or carbon dioxide during mining, and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions generated from the burning of coal. Mines may also create a net addition of carbon to the atmosphere through the removal of “carbon pools” such as forests, which may also have impacts on biodiversity.
Many in the mining industry recognise the global challenges related to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and companies are increasingly monitoring and publicly reporting on their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and are taking steps to reduce energy use and emissions by adopting renewable energy and low-emissions technologies, and improving energy efficiency. Some companies are also beginning to work with communities to assess the risks and develop strategies to plan for, mitigate and adapt to climate change.
There are many potential benefits for companies that proactivelyreduce energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel dependency. Those companies investing early in energy efficiency measures may enjoy a competitive advantage over those who lag behind, as increased efficiency can help protect companies from increased fuel costs, mitigate the impact of regulations that may limit or put a price on carbon emissions, and result in better market performance.
Additionally, mines proposed in regions that are vulnerable to climate change are increasingly likely to be faced with scepticism by insurers and investors. As a result, those companies that are transparent about their greenhouse gas emissions, their reduction targets, and their climate adaptation strategies, and can demonstrate a positive track record of reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency, are more likely to be viewed favourably by insurers, investors, and the communities in vulnerable regions, or wherever they hope to operate. Companies that proactively develop strategies to adapt to climate change can also contribute to sustainable development goals on poverty reduction and climate action.
The company has systems in place to identify and report on the potential implications of climate change on its current and future operations’ impacts on communities, workers and the environment, and to design and implement appropriate adaptation and transition strategies.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and report on the potential implications of climate change on their current and future operations’ impacts on communities, workers and the environment?
b. Has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these implications?
c. Systematically tracks the implementation of these strategies and plans?
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on managing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by its activities and its energy use.
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on managing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by its activities and its energy use?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use?
c. Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, in order to minimise them?
The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on managing energy consumption throughout its operations.
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on managing energy consumption throughout its operations?
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations?
c. Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations?
F.07 Hazardous Materials Management
Hazardous materials are those that represent a risk to human health, property or the environment due to their physical or chemical characteristics. There are a variety of potentially hazardous materials that are generated or used by mining operations.
Some hazardous substances, like mercury, arsenic, lead or cadmium, may be made more available as a result of mining. For example, mercury, which is associated with some gold, silver, copper or zinc deposits, may be mobilised during roasting or smelting, or be leached or released into soils, water or air from tailings. Sulphuric acid, a chemical often used in ore processing and a by-product of mining sulphide-bearing ores, may result in acidic drainage and the release of heavy metals into the environment.
Other hazardous chemicals are used to extract metals and minerals from ore. For example, cyanide is commonly used for processing gold and silver, and may be a minor processing reagent at some base metal mines. Cyanide, if released in the workplace or environment, can be lethal to many living organisms. Nitric acid, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil are often used as blasting agents. In addition to being potential environmental pollutants, these explosives may present a security risk for companies, and should be managed accordingly.
All hazardous materials require sound management of occupational health, environmental and social risks throughout their lifecycles - including during sourcing, transport, storage, use, production, and disposal. Typically, responsible management of hazardous materials prioritises avoidance, such as through the substitution of less hazardous chemicals or processes. Where avoidance is not possible, the leading practice will be to minimise the use or production of hazardous materials, and prevent and control releases and accidents.
These objectives can be addressed through the ongoing assessment of hazards and preparation of hazards materials risk management plans. Further measures include the implementation of actions such as education and training programmes for workers, contractors and communities; equipment and facility inspections and maintenance; monitoring of the concentrations of hazardous materials in wastes; and the development of procedures to address residual risks that cannot be prevented or controlled.
If not properly managed, the release of hazardous substances into the workplace or the environment can have severe and long-lasting negative impacts on water quality, the health of ecosystems, workers and local communities. It may also have reputational and financial ramifications for companies or governments that must bear the costs of remediating contamination and provide compensation to impacted workers or community members.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess potential risks related to the transportation, handling, storage, emission and disposal of hazardous materials, and to design and implement strategies and plans to address identified risks.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the risks related to their use of hazardous materials?
b. Has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these risks?
c. Systematically tracks the implementation of these strategies and plans?
F.08 Emergency Preparedness
Large-scale mines carry significant operational risks. The release or spill of hazardous chemicals, tailings dam failures, explosions, fires and a range of other possible accidents pose risks to mineworkers and nearby communities. Accidents may be related to human errors, equipment failure, or poor management of mine wastes or hazardous materials. Natural forces, such as earthquakes, floods, cyclones or forest fires mayalso cause or compound emergencies at mining operations.
Mining-related accidents or incidents may lead to significant and long-lasting impacts, including environmental damage, property damage, injuries, loss of life and psychological trauma. They may also cause significant financial losses for communities, governments and companies, and damage to the image of the mining industry as a whole.
Despite best efforts, mining-related accidents and emergencies can never entirely be prevented. However, mining companies, in collaboration with local governments, workers and communities, can develop and implement crisis management and emergency preparedness policies, training programmes and procedures to minimise the negative consequences of such emergencies.
Guidance has been developed to help mining companies prepare themselves, their workers and local communities for mining-related emergencies. The United Nations Environment Programme and others have recommended that companies adopt a collaborative approach to emergency response planning that involves local authorities, emergency responders and community members in the identification of potential mining-related accidents; the development of strategies to reduce and manage identified risks; and the creation of emergency response plans. To increase the effectiveness of emergency response plans, mining companies can test them with potentially affected parties and communicate them to the community-at-large so that key actors are prepared to respond effectively to a range of emergency scenarios.
A collaborative approach to emergency response can help to reduce community fears about potential mining-related impacts, reduce the risks to vulnerable populations that are often hit hardest and longest by disasters and emergencies, and build greater confidence and trust between mining operations and communities. In the event of a mining-related accident, well planned emergency response may reduce human casualties, limit impacts on property and the environment, and minimise financial losses to the company.
Financial preparedness is an additional component of responsible emergency preparedness. The leading practice is for companies to anticipate and insure against the cost of reparation for accidents or natural catastrophes, to ensure that funds are available to implement effective emergency response, pay compensation for damages, injury or loss of life, and for companies to fund recovery and reconstruction in a timely and efficient manner.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations engage local authorities, workers and communities in developing, communicating and testing emergency preparedness and response plans.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to ensure its operations:
a. Develop and maintain emergency preparedness and response plans?
b. Systematically engage with local stakeholders (e.g. local authorities and communities) in the design of emergency response plans?
c. Systematically engage with local stakeholders in the testing of these response plans?
The company publicly discloses all relevant information about financial assurance that is provided for disaster management and recovery, throughout its operations.
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses all relevant information about financial assurance that is provided for disaster management and recovery?
b. Includes in this disclosure information on specific financial assurance provisions on a mine-site-disaggregated basis?
c. Updates this information on a yearly basis?
Scoring Framework:
F.01.1 The company commits to manage its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach.(/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to prevent all direct and indirect forms of bribery and corruption?
The company commits to manage its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach, in a formal document which covers all of the company’s activities which is endorsed by senior management.
The company commits to manage its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach, in a formal document which covers all of the company’s activities which is endorsed by senior management.
OR
The company commits to manage its environmental impacts systematically in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company commits to manage its environmental impacts systematically in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but it only covers some limited aspects of managing its environmental impacts and/or does not explicitly refer to the mitigation hierarchy approach.
The company refers to the need for managing its environmental impacts systematically, but does not make a clear commitment in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management.
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment, and there is detailed information on its actual scope, role and accountability.
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment but there is limited information on its actual scope, role and accountability
OR
The company has a senior-management-level or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment, but not on a company-wide basis
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company briefly refers to a function at the senior management level and/or Board level for carrying it out this commitment, but does not provide any additional information
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company scored 0.5 under a).
c. Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
The company has company-wide operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on managing its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach
OR
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/ or workshops related to its commitment, and there is detailed evidence of the specific financial and/or staffing resources commited.
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/ or workshops related to its commitment to prevent bribery and corruption, and there is detailed evidence of the specific financial and/or staffing resources committed.
OR
The company has company-wide operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on managing its environmental impacts systematically, but only on some limited aspects of managing its environmental impacts or not through the mitigation hierarchy approach
OR
The company allocates esources to implement this commitment (awareness/training programmes/workshops and/or responsible teams), but not on a company-wide basis
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company has plans related to the implementation of this commitment, but there is limited information on the actual financial and staffing resources committed
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company scored 0.5 under a).
F.01.2 The company has systems in place to ensure its operations conduct and disclose regular assessments of its environmental impacts through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to ensure its operations:
a. Identify environmental baseline conditions and changes, through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations identify environmental baseline conditions and changes, through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations identify environmental baseline conditions and/or changes through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure ensure its operations identify environmental baseline conditions and/or changes through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems., but not on a company-wide basis.
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure operations identify environmental baseline conditions and/or changes, but not through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts.
The company provides a limited narrative description of systems to ensure its operations identify environmental baseline conditions and/or changes, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of one or more isolated cases of operations having identified environmental baseline conditions and/or changes, but there is no evidence of company-wide approaches or systems in place.
b. Identify and assess the environmental impacts of their activities, through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the environmental impacts of their activities through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the environmental impacts of their activities through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure operations identify and assess the environmental impacts of their activities but not through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the environmental impacts of their activities through an integrated approach that considers the linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
The company provides a limited narrative description of systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the environmental impacts of their activities, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two operations having having identified and assessed the environmental impacts of their activities.
c. Regularly and systematically present and discuss the results of their assessments of environmental impacts with local communities?
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations regularly and systematically present and discuss the results of their assessments of environmental impacts with local communities, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations present and/or discuss the results of their assessments of environmental impacts with local limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems.
OR
The company has systems in to ensure its operations present and/or discuss the results of their assessments of environmental impacts with local communities, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and/or content of these system, but not on a company-wide basis
The company provides a limited narrative description of systems to present and/ or discuss the results of its assessments of environmental impacts with local communities, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two cases of operations having presented and/or discussed the results of their assessments of environmental impacts with local communities.
F.02.1 The company commits to not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to not use riverine, 2 points
The company commits to not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings in a dedicated formal document which covers all of the company’s activities and is endorsed by senior management.
The company commits to not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings in a formal document which covers all of the company’s activities, but there is no evidence that this commitment is endorsed by senior management
OR
The company commits to not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company commits to not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but it only covers some limited aspects of not using riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings
The company refers to not using riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings, but does not make a clear commitment in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management.
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment, and there is detailed information on its actual scope, role and accountability.
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment, but there is limited information on its actual scope, role and accountability
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company briefly refers to a function at the senior management level and/or Board level for carrying out this commitment, but does not provide any additional information
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company scored 0.5 under a).
c.Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
The company has company-wide operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on not using riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings
OR
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/ or workshops related ot its commitment, and there is detailed evidence of the specific financial and/or staffing resources commited.
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/or workshops related to coordinating efforts on not using riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings, but there is limited information on the actual financial and/or staffing resources committed
OR
The company has company-wide operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on not using riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings, but only on some limited aspects of not using riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings
OR
The company allocates financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment (awareness/training programmes/workshops and/or responsible teams), but not on a company-wide basis
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company provides limited evidence of allocating financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company 0.5 under a).
F.02.2 Where applicable, the company publicly discloses information about the location and safety of all its tailings storage facilities. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses the number and exact location of all tailings storage facilities (including those currently active and those under rehabilitation or closed)?
The company discloses the exact locations of all its tailings storage facilities, including those currently active and those under rehabilitation or closed.
The company discloses the exact locations of some of its tailings storage facilities, including those currently active and those under rehabilitation or closed
OR
The company discloses the approximate locations of all its tailings storage facilities, including those currently active and those under rehabilitation or closed.
The company discloses the approximate locations of some of its tailings storage facilities
OR
The company discloses the total number of its tailings storage facilities.
b. Publicly discloses the construction methods and hazard categories (based on impact assessments) of each of its tailings storage facilities?
The company publicly discloses the construction methods and hazard categories (based on impact assessments) of all its tailings storage facilities.
The company publicly discloses the construction methods and hazard categories (based on impact assessments) of some of its tailings storage facilities
OR
The company publicly discloses the construction methods or hazard categories (based on impact assessments) of all its tailings storage facilities.
The company publicly discloses the construction methods or hazard categories (based on impact assessments) of a limited number of its tailings storage facilities.
c.Makes this information freely available on its corporate website?
The company scored 2pts on a) and b) and the information for a) and b) is freely available on the company’s corporate website
The company scored 1pt on a) and b) and the corresponding evidence is freely available on the company‘s corporate website
OR
The company scored more than 1pt on a) or b) but 1pt on the other and the corresponding evidence is freely available on the company‘s corporate website
The company scored 0.5pt on a) and/or b) and the corresponding evidence is freely available on the company‘s corporate website
OR
The company scored more than 0.5pt on a) or b) but 0.5pt on the other and the corresponding evidence is freely available on the company‘s corporate website
F.02.3 Where applicable, the company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure. (/6.00)
Where applicable, can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure?
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure, and the data is compared across successive time periods.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure, but the data is not compared across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but does not include seepage and tailings dam failure
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure and the data is compared across successive time periods, but does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, but the data is not compared across successive time periods and does not include seepage and tailings dam failure
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure, but the data is not compared across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on addressing potential risks related to its tailings facilities, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but does not include seepage and tailings dam failure and does not cover all of the company’s activities.
b. Carries out third-party audits and/or reviews on the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure?
The company discloses detailed data on third-party reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure.
The company discloses limited data on third-party reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that wire:were actually conducted, beyond statement.
OR
The company discloses information on actual third-party reviews/audits of the TSF stability and potential risks conducted across its operations, but there is no evidenceof third-party reviews/audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to address these potential risks.
c.Takes responsive action, on the basis of the findings of these third-party audits, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure, and has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to address potential risks related to its tailings facilities, including seepage and tailings dam failure, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
F.03.1 The company has systems in place to ensure its operations design and implement water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, to address water security in the affected area for current and future water users and the environment. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Has systems in place to ensure its operations develop water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, to respect the water needs and rights of current and future water users and the environment?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations develop water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, o respect the water needs and rights of current and future water users and the environment, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations develop water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, to respect the water needs and rights of current and future water users and the environment, but there is limited evidence of the scope and content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, to respect the water needs and rights of current and future water users and the environment, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop water stewardship strategies and plands on one of the four dimensions is not addressed.
The company provides a limited narrative description of systems to ensure its operations develop water stewardship strategies and plans, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two cases of operations having developed water stewardship strategies and plans.
b. Has systems in place to ensure its operations consult with potentially-affected water users in the development of these water stewardship strategies and plans?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations consult with potentially-affected water users in the development of these water stewardship strategies and plan, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations consult with potentially-affected water users in the development of these water stewardship strategies and plans, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems.
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations consult with potentiallyaffected water users in the development of these water stewardship strategies and plans, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems., but not on a company-wide basis.
The company provides a limited narrative description of systems to ensure its operations consult with potentially-affected water users in the development of these water stewardship strategies and plans, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two operations having consulted with potentially-affected water users in the development of these water stewardship strategies and plans.
c.Systematically tracks the implementation of these water stewardship strategies?
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) confirming the systematic, company-wide tracking of the implementation of these strategies and plans.
The company has company-wide systems in place to systematically track the implementation of these strategies and plans, but there is limited evidence of the actual use of such systems
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) from the tracking of the implementation of strategies and plans at several of its operations, but there is no evidence of a systematic, company-wide approach.
The company states that it tracks the implementation of these water stewardship strategies, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or more isolated cases of operations where the implementation of these strategies and plans is tracked.
F.03.2 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on reducing its water consumption. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on reducing its water consumption?
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods and against targets.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared against targets, but not disclosed across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but not against targets
OR
The company discloses company-wide data on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared against targets and across successive time periods, but the data is outdated (older than the assessment period)
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods and against targets, but does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its water consumption, but the data is not compared against targets and not across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared against targets, but not disclosed across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but not against targets and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses data on its performance on reducing its water consumption, and the data is compared against targets and across successive time periods, but the data is outdated (older than the assessment period) and does not cover all of the company’s activities.
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption
OR
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement.
OR
There is one or multiple isolated site-specific examples of reviews/audits having been conducted on the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce water consumption, but there is no evidence of a company-wide systematic approach.
c.Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption, and has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
OR
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption, but it does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/ or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its water consumption, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
OR
There is one or more isolated site-specific examples of reviews/audits recommendations having been integrated to continuously improve the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce water consumption, but there is no evidence of a company-wide systematic approach.
F.03.3 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a.Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality?
2 (Satisfactory evidence) The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality showing at least three dimensions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) and overall water quality category, and across successive time periods, and the company discloses improvement targets.
1 (Some satisfactory evidence) The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, showing at least two dimensions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, and the company discloses improvement targets, but data is not disclosed across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, throughout its operations showing at least two dimensnions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, and data is compared across successive time periods, but the company does not disclose improvement targets
OR
The company discloses data on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, throughout its operations showing at least two dimensions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, an the company discloses improvement targets, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but the data is outdated (older than the assessment period)
OR
The company discloses recent data on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality showing at least three dimensions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) and overall water quality category, and across successive time periods, and the company discloses improvement targets, but the data disclosed does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company tracks and discloses data on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality showing only one or two dimensions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) and overall water quality category, and across successive time periods, and the company discloses improvement targets.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, but the data is not compared against targets and not across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, showing at least two dimensions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, and the company discloses improvement targets, but data is not disclosed across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, throughout its operations showing at least two dimensnions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, and data is compared across successive time periods, but the company does not disclose improvement targets and the data does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses data on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, throughout its operations showing at least two dimensions (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, an the company discloses improvement targets, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but the data is outdated (older than the assessment period) and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, showing only one dimension (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, and the company discloses improvement targets, but data is not disclosed across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, throughout its operations showing only one dimensnion (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, and data is compared across successive time periods, but the company does not disclose improvement targets
OR
The company discloses data on its performance on reducing its adverse impacts on water quality, throughout its operations showing only one dimension (dimensions considered include heavy metals concentration, pH and other conventional variables, hydrocarbons, PCBs and dioxins) or overall water quality category, and the company discloses improvement targets, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but the data is outdated (older than the assessment period)
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement.
OR
There is one or multiple isolated site-specific examples of reviews/audits having been conducted on the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on water quality, but there is no evidence of a company-wide systematic approach.
c.Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/ or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality, and has disclosed information on reviews and/ or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/ or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to reduce its adverse impacts on water quality, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
OR
There is one or more isolated site-specific examples of reviews/audits recommendations having been integrated to continuously improve the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on water quality, but there is no evidence of a company-wide systematic approach.
F.04.1 The company has systems in place to ensure its operations limit the impacts of noise and vibration on affected communities, structures, properties, and wildlife. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to ensure its operations:
a. Regularly assess, against baseline values, the noise and vibration levels generated by their activities?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations regularly assess, against baseline values, the noise and vibration levels generated by their activities, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations assess the noise and vibration levels generated by their activities, but not against baseline values or not on a regular basis
OR
The company has systems in place to to ensure its operations regularly assess, against baseline values, either the noise or vibration levels generated by their activities
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations regularly assess, against baseline values, the noise and vibration levels generated by their activities, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a companywide basis.
The company provides a limited narrative description of systems to ensure its operations assess the noise and vibration levels generated by their activities, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or some isolated cases of operations having assessed the noise and vibration levels generated by their activities, but there is no evidence of a company-wide approach or system.
b. Develop strategies and plans to limit the impacts of noise and vibration generated by their activities in the surrounding areas?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to limit the impacts of noise and vibration generated by their activities in the surrounding areas, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to limit the impacts of noise and/or vibration generated by their activities in the surrounding areas, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to limit the impacts of noise and vibration generated by their activities in the surrounding areas, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not a company-wide basis.
The company provides a limited narrative description of its systems to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to limit the impacts of noise and/or vibration generated by their activities in the surrounding areas, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two operations having developed strategies and plans to limit the impacts of noise and/or vibration generated by their activities in the surrounding areas.
c.Systematically engage with affected communities and other stakeholders in the development of these strategies?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations engage with affected communities and other stakeholders in the development of these strategies, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations engage with affected communities and other stakeholders in the development of these strategies, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations engage with affected communities and other stakeholders in the development of these strategies, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a companywide basis.
The company states that it engages with affected communities and other stakeholders in the development of these strategies, but there is no information beyond narrative statement
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two operations having engaged with with affected communities and other stakeholders in the development of these strategies.
F.05.1 The company commits to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites and to respect other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has:
a. Formalised its commitment, that is endorsed by senior management, to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites and to respect other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage?
The company commits to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites and to respect other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage in a formal document which covers all of the company’s activities and is endorsed by senior management.
The company commits to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites and to respect other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage in a formal document which covers all of the company’s activities, but there is no evidence that this commitment is endorsed by senior management
OR
The company commits to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites and to respect other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage in a dedicated formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company commits to not explore or mine in World Heritage Sites in a dedicated formal document which is endorsed by senior management, but it only covers some limited aspects or does not refer to respecting other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage.
The company refers to the need for respecting World Heritage Sites and other terrestrial and marine protected areas, but does not make a clear commitment in a formal document which is endorsed by senior management.
b. Assigned senior management or board-level responsibilities and accountability for carrying out this commitment?
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment and there is detailed information on its actual scope, role and accountability.
The company has a senior management level and/or Board level function responsible for carrying out this commitment, but there is limited information on its actual scope, role and accountability
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company briefly mentions a function at the senior management level and/or Board level for carrying out this commitment, but does not provide any additional information
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company scored 0.5 under a).
c.Committed financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment?
The company has company-wide operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on not exploring or mining in World Heritage Sites and respecting other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage
OR
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/ or workshops related to its commitment and there is evidence of the specific financial and/or staffing resources commited.
The company has company-wide operational-level teams responsible for coordinating efforts on not exploring or mining in World Heritage Sites, but only on some limited aspects or there is no reference to respecting other terrestrial and marine protected areas that are designated to conserve cultural or natural heritage.
OR
The company conducts company-wide awareness and/or training programmes and/ or workshops related to not exploring or mining in World Heritage Sites, but there is limited information on the actual financial and/or staffing resources committed
OR
The company allocates financial and staffing resources to implement this commitment (awareness/training programmes/workshops and/or responsible teams) but not on a company-wide basis
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2, but the company scored 1 under a).
The company provides limited evidence of awareness and/or training programmes and/or workshops and these do not relate specifically to World Heritage Sites or protected areas
OR
The company provides evidence qualifying for a score of 2 or 1, but the company scored 0.5 under a).
F.05.2 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on biodiversity and ecosystem services management. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, across successive time periods, on its performance on biodiversity and ecosystem services management?
2 (Satisfactory evidence) The company tracks and discloses recent data on its performance on biodiversity or ecosystem services management, showing multiple dimensions of tracking (i.e.: land disturbed vs. land restored/rehabilitated; land set aside for conservation/offset areas; conservation/protection of endangered species (fauna/flora); other KPIs…)and across successive time periods.
1 (Some satisfactory evidence) The company tracks and discloses recent data on its performance on biodiversity or ecosystem services management, showing multiple dimensions of tracking (i.e.: land disturbed vs. land restored/rehabilitated; land set aside for conservation/offset areas; conservation/protection of endangered species (fauna/flora); other KPIs…), but not on a company-wide basis or not across successive time periods
OR
The company tracks and discloses recent data on its performance on biodiversity or ecosystem services management, on a company-wide basis and across successive time periods, but showing only one dimension of tracking.
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on its performance on biodiversity or ecosystem services management, but showing only one dimension of tracking (i.e.: land disturbed vs. land restored/rehabilitated; land set aside for conservation/offset areas; conservation/protection of endangered species (fauna/flora); other KPIs…)
OR
The company provides only one or two relevant examples
b. Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity and ecosystem services?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity or ecosystem services.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity or ecosystem services.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity or ecosystem services are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement.
c.Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity and ecosystem services?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity or ecosystem services.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity and ecosystem services, and has disclosed information on reviews and/ or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement
OR
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity or ecosystem services, but it does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage biodiversity or ecosystem services, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
F.06.1 The company has systems in place to identify and report on the potential implications of climate change on its current and future operations’ impacts on communities, workers and the environment, and to design and implement appropriate adaptation and transition strategies. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and report on the potential implications of climate change on their current and future operations’ impacts on communities, workers and the environment?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations identify and report on the potential implications of climate change on their current and future operations’ impacts on communities, workers and the environment, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify or report on the potential implications of climate change on their current or future operations’ impacts on at least two of the following dimensions: communities, workers or the environment
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and report on the potential implications of climate change on their current and future operations’ impacts on communities, workers and the environment, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify or report on the potential implications of climate change on their current or future operations’ impacts but only related to one of the following dimensions: communities, workers or the environment.
b. Has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these implications?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these implications, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these implications, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these implications, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
The company provides a limited narrative description of its systems to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these implications, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two operations having developed strategies and plans to address these implications.
c.Systematically tracks the implementation of these strategies and plans?
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) confirming the systematic, company-wide tracking of the implementation of these strategies and plans.
The company has systems in place to systematically track the implementation of these strategies and plans, but there is limited evidence of the actual use of such systems
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) from the tracking of the implementation of strategies and plans at several of its operations, but there is no evidence of a systematic, company-wide approach.
The company states that it tracks the implementation of these strategies and plans, but there is no information disclosed beyond a narrative description.
F.06.2 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on managing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by its activities and its energy use. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on managing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by its activities and its energy use?
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, and the data is compared across successive time periods and against targets.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use (Scope 1 and Scope 2), and the data is compared against targets, but not across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use (Scope 1 and Scope 2), and the data is compared across successive time periods, but not against targets
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, and the data is compared across successive time periods and against targets, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, but the data is not compared against targets and not across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, and the data is compared against targets, but not across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but not against targets and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities only, and the data is compared against targets, but not across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on GHG emissions generated by its activities only, and the data is compared across successive time periods, but not against targets.
b.Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement
OR
The company discloses data on the outcomes of reviews/audits that were conducted within the assessment period, but there is no information on the scope and actual content of these reviews/audits and the data does not cover all of companies’ activities
c.Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, in order to minimise them?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, and has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage the GHG emissions generated by its activities and its energy use, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
F.06.3 The company tracks, reviews and acts to improve its performance on managing energy consumption throughout its operations. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate that it systematically:
a. Tracks and discloses data, against targets and across successive time periods, on its performance on managing energy consumption throughout its operations?
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on energy consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods and against targets.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on energy consumption, and the data is compared against targets but not across successive time periods
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on energy consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods but not against targets
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on energy consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods and against targets, but the data does not cover all of the company’s activities.
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on energy consumption, but the data is not compared across successive time periods and not against targets
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) on energy consumption and the data is compared against targets, but not across successive time periods and does not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company discloses recent company-wide data (within the assessment period) on energy consumption, and the data is compared across successive time periods but not against targets and does not cover all of the company’s activities.
b.Audits and/or reviews the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations?
The company discloses detailed data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption.
The company discloses limited data on reviews and/or audits conducted within the assessment period to assess the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption.
The company states that regular reviews and/or audits of the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations are required and shall be conducted by an identified internal or external body, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, beyond statement.
c.Takes responsive action, based on the findings of these audits and/or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations?
The company discloses information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted and discloses data on how it has integrated recommendations and acted on findings to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations, and has disclosed information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, but there is no information on the integration of recommendations, beyond statement.
The company states that it integrates the recommendations from these audits and/or reviews to continuously improve the effectiveness of its measures taken to manage energy consumption throughout its operations, but there is no information on reviews and/or audits that were actually conducted, and thus no information on the integration of recommendations.
F.07.1 The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess potential risks related to the transportation, handling, storage, emission and disposal of hazardous materials, and to design and implement strategies and plans to address identified risks. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the risks related to their use of hazardous materials?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the risks related to their use of hazardous materials, covering both input and outputs, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the risks related to their use of hazardous materials, covering both inputs and outputs, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the risks related to their use of hazardous materials, covering either inputs or outputs, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations identify and assess the risks related to their use of hazardous materials, covering both input and outputs, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
The company provides a limited narrative description of systems to ensure its operations identify and assess the risks related to their use of hazardous materials, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or multiple isolated cases of operations having identified and assessed the risks related to their use of hazardous materials, but there is no evidence of company-wide approaches or systems in place.
F. Has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these risks?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses these identified impacts, covering both inputs and outputs, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses these identified impacts, covering both inputs and outputs, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has company-wide systems to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses these identified impacts, and there is detailed evidence of their scope and content, but it only covers either inputs or outputs
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses these identified impacts, covering both inputs and outputs, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
The company provides a limited narrative description of its systems to ensure its operations develop strategies and plans to address these risks, but there is no information about the scope, content and actual implementation of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two operations having developed strategies and plans to address these risks.
c.Systematically tracks the implementation of these strategies and plans?
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) confirming the systematic, company-wide tracking of the implementation of these strategies and plans which covers both input and outputs.
The company has systems in place to systematically track the implementation of these strategies and plans throughout its operations, covering both inputs and outputs, but there is limited evidence of the actual use of such systems
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) from the tracking of the implementation of strategies and plans at several of its operations, covering both inputs and outputs, but there is no evidence of a systematic, company-wide approach
OR
The company discloses recent data (within the assessment period) confirming the systematic, company-wide tracking of the implementation of these strategies and plans related to only one or multiple specific substances or materials.
The company states that it tracks the implementation of these strategies and plans, but there is no information disclosed beyond a narrative description.
F.08.1 The company has systems in place to ensure its operations engage local authorities, workers and communities in developing, communicating and testing emergency preparedness and response plans. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it has systems in place to ensure its operations:
a. Develop and maintain emergency preparedness and response plans?
The company has company-wide systems in place to carry out due diligence on its suppliers and contractors to identify risks on human rights issues, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop and maintain emergency preparedness and response plans, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company provides evidence that all its operations have developed emergency response plans
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop and maintain emergency preparedness and response plans, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop and maintain emergency preparedness and response plans, but these systems are limited to one specific category of emergencies/risks.
b. Systematically engage with local stakeholders (e.g. local authorities and communities) in the design of emergency response plans?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations engage with local authorities and local communities in the design of emergency response plans, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations engage with local authorities and local communities in the design of emergency response plans, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations engage with local authorities or local communities in the design of emergency response plans, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these system, but these do not cover all of the company’s activities
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations engage with local authorities and local communities in the design of emergency response plans, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company-wide basis.
The company states that it engages with local stakeholders in the design of emergency response plans, but there is no information beyond narrative statement
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or two operations having engaged with local stakeholders (authorities or communities).
c.Systematically engage with local stakeholders in the testing of these response plans?
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations engage with local authorities and local communities in the testing of these response plans, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems.
The company has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations engage with local authorities and local communities in the testing of these response plans, but there is limited evidence of the scope and/or content of these systems
OR
The company has systems in place to ensure its operations engage with local authorities or local communities in the testing of these response plans, and there is detailed evidence of the scope and content of these systems, but not on a company wide basis.
The company states that it engages with local stakeholders in the testing of these response plans, but there is no information disclosed beyond a narrative description
OR
The company provides evidence of only one or more isolated cases of operations having engaged with local stakeholders in the testing of these response plans.
F.08.2 The company publicly discloses all relevant information about financial assurance that is provided for disaster management and recovery, throughout its operations. (/6.00)
Can your company demonstrate at the corporate level that it:
a. Publicly discloses all relevant information about financial assurance that is provided for disaster management and recovery?
The company publicly discloses all relevant information about financial assurance that is provided for disaster management and recovery.
The company publicly discloses some information about financial assurance that is provided for disaster management and recovery.
n/a
b. Includes in this disclosure information on specific financial assurance provisions on a mine-site-disaggregated basis?
The company includes in this disclosure information on specific financial assurance provisions on a mine-site-disaggregated basis.
The company includes in this disclosure information on specific financial assurance provisions on a mine-site-disaggregated basis, but only for some mine sites
OR
The company includes in this disclosure information on specific financial assurance provisions on a country-disaggregated basis.
There is evidence of only one or two mine sites having disclosed this information.
