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.
Pembangunan Ekonomi
Ekstraksi mineral dan logam skala besar merupakan kesempatan satu kali yang sangat penting bagi negara-negara produsen dan masyarakatnya untuk memetik keuntungan ekonomi jangka panjang dari sumber daya alam yang tidak dapat diperbarui ini. Potensi pendapatannya sangat besar: kekayaan mineral, jika dikelola dengan baik, dapat mengubah perekonomian nasional, mengurangi kemiskinan dan ketimpangan, meningkatkan keadilan antargenerasi, dan meningkatkan kesehatan, pendidikan, dan kesejahteraan penduduk sebuah negara. Namun keuntungan tersebut sering kali tidak terwujud. Beberapa negara paling kaya sumber daya alam adalah negara termiskin di dunia dan kekayaan mineral mereka, bukannya membawa kemakmuran, justru dipandang mempertajam kemiskinan dan memicu korupsi serta konflik. Bahkan di negara-negara maju sekalipun, pembangunan pertambangan yang berwawasan sempit bisa menimbulkan dampak negatif antargenerasi dan berjangka panjang.
Pemerintah negara-negara produsen bertanggung jawab untuk memelihara sumber daya mineral mereka dan dengan penuh tanggung jawab mengelola pendapatan yang dihasilkan dari ekstraksi sumber daya mineral tersebut. Tata kelola yang baik sangatlah penting agar pertambangan mampu mewujudkan potensinya dalam menyumbang pembangunan ekonomi yang berkelanjutan. Pada saat yang sama, perusahaan-perusahaan tambang memainkan peran penting dalam memastikan potensi investasi dan aktivitas mereka mampu meningkatkan secara optimal pembangunan sosio-ekonomi di negara-negara produsen dan kawasan yang lebih luas.
Perusahaan tambang skala besar, yang bekerja sama secara kemitraan dengan para pemangku kepentingan yang lain, dapat memanfaatkan investasi terkait tambang untuk mendongkrak capaian pembangunan dan, dengan demikian, berkontribusi pada Tujuan Pembangunan yang Berkelanjutan (SDG). Sebagai contoh, infrastruktur tambang yang direncanakan dengan baik dapat melecut pembangunan nasional dan pertumbuhan supranasional di kawasan yang lebih luas (Lihat A.01), sedangkan strategi pengadaan yang bertanggung jawab dapat membangun kapasitas negara produsen dalam menyediakan berbagai barang, barang habis pakai, dan jasa selain di bidang pertambangan (Lihat A.02). Perusahaan tambang juga dapat menopang pembangunan kapasitas dengan memfasilitasi pengembangan serta alih keterampilan dan teknologi ke sektor lain (Lihat A.03 dan A.04). Mendukung transparansi dan akuntabilitas dalam memanfaatkan pendapatan mineral juga luar biasa penting (Lihat B.04, B.05, B.06, B.07).
Industri pertambangan global semakin menyadari betapa pentingnya, dan menindaklanjuti berbagai peluang, untuk berkontribusi bagi pembangunan yang berkelanjutan. Dengan membangun kemitraan yang konstruktif dengan pemerintah negara-negara produsen, industri sejenis, masyarakat sipil, dan para pemangku kepentingan yang lain untuk mengubah peluang ini menjadi manfaat, perusahaan tambang dapat memperkuat posisi mereka sebagai warga korporasi yang baik dan mitra pembangunan yang tepercaya.
Pembangunan Ekonomi
Not available for 2021
Pelaksanaan Bisnis
Perusahaan tambang, seperti bisnis global lainnya, bertanggung jawab kepada para pemilik dan pemegang saham mereka, baik dari perorangan, korporasi, pemerintah, maupun pembayar pajak. Perusahaan tambang juga semakin dituntut pertanggungjawabannya oleh para pemangku kepentingan dan pasar global, yang mengharapkan agar perusahaan menerapkan praktik berbisnis yang etis dan sistem tata kelola serta transparansi operasional perusahaan yang matang. Untuk menjawab tuntutan ini, beberapa perusahaan tambang telah berkomitmen untuk mengelola aspek ekonomi, lingkungan, sosial, dan tata kelola (EESG) operasinya secara lebih bertanggung jawab.
Sebagaimana upaya-upaya pembangunan ekonomi perusahaan tambang bisa berkontribusi pada tercapainya Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan (SDG) PBB (Lihat Bagian A), pelaksanaan bisnis yang bertanggung jawab oleh perusahaan tambang juga dapat membantu negara produsen memperoleh kemajuan dalam upaya mencapai tujuan tersebut. Misalnya, transparansi praktik bisnis pertambangan, terutama di negara-negara dengan tata kelola yang lemah atau rentan korupsi, tidak hanya membantu menyoroti praktik bisnis perusahaan yang baik, tetapi juga dapat berkontribusi pada akuntabilitas negara produsen yang lebih besar (SDG 16) dan potensi yang lebih besar dalam pemanfaatan kekayaan mineral untuk menurunkan angka kemiskinan (SDG 1) dan membawa manfaat bagi penduduk secara keseluruhan.
Pelaksanaan bisnis dengan menjunjung tinggi integritas juga mendorong perusahaan untuk menghargai hak asasi manusia, pekerja, dan lingkungan; melindungi diri dari korupsi; dan menciptakan nilai bagi negara produsen dan masyarakat yang terdampak oleh aktivitas pertambangan. Semua elemen tersebut merupakan konsep penting dalam SDG.
Pelaksanaan Bisnis
B.01 Etika Bisnis, Antisuap, dan Antikorupsi
Etika bisnis merupakan penerapan nilai-nilai etis ke dalam pelaksanaan kiprah perusahaan atau individu di dalam perusahaan tersebut. Daftar nilai etis yang diadopsi oleh sebuah perusahaan memang mengikuti kebijaksanaannya, tetapi sering meliputi nilai-nilai seperti: integritas, keadilan, kejujuran, dapat dipercaya, kebebasan, penghormatan, dan keterbukaan. Nilai-nilai tersebut lantas dapat diterapkan dalam permasalahan ekonomi, lingkungan, sosial, dan tata kelola (EESG) yang relevan seperti konflik kepentingan; hadiah dan jamuan; donasi dan lobi politik; suap dan korupsi; privasi data; penggunaan media sosial; keragaman; hak asasi manusia; dan perlakuan atau interaksi dengan pekerja, masyarakat, dan lingkungan.
Perilaku etis berpeluang besar terwujud jika nilai-nilai ditanamkan ke dalam budaya perusahaan, di seluruh departemen dan operasinya; perilaku yang diharapkan dikomunikasikan secara jelas ke semua karyawan (melalui program penyuluhan/sosialisasi dan peningkatan kesadaran), mitra bisnis dan pemangku kepentingan yang relevan; ada sanksi atas pelanggaran perilaku tidak etis, tetapi juga insentif untuk mewujudkan perilaku etis yang tinggi; dan ada mekanisme pemantauan untuk memahami tingkat kepatuhan perusahaan pada nilai-nilai yang dipedomaninya. Yang juga penting adalah pelaporan ke karyawan dan pemangku kepentingan, yang mendorong pembelajaran dan akuntabilitas di semua tingkat di perusahaan, dan memberikan sarana untuk menunjukkan bahwa komitmen yang diambil di tingkat korporasi benar-benar dijalankan di tingkat operasional pertambangan.
Perusahaan yang berkomitmen pada perilaku etis juga akan menerapkan mekanisme yang efektif yang memudahkan individu di dalam dan di luar perusahaan untuk mengadukan keprihatinan terhadap perilaku yang tidak etis atau melanggar hukum, termasuk hotline pelaporan pelanggaran atau prosedur serupa yang memudahkan pelaporan secara anonim dan rahasia tanpa takut diancam balik atau dibalas. Dalam situasi tertentu, demi membangun kepercayaan terhadap mekanisme tersebut, pihak ketiga independen mungkin diperlukan untuk mengelola mekanisme dan melaporkan balik hasilnya ke perusahaan. Penciptaan budaya saling percaya dan keterbukaan juga berarti memastikan pekerja (karyawan dan pekerja kontrak) dan pemasok memiliki kepercayaan diri, dan didorong, untuk mengadukan masalah yang menjadi keprihatinan, dan bahwa perlindungan diberikan bagi orang-orang yang menyampaikan keluhan. Langkah ini, pada gilirannya, lebih berpeluang memberikan identifikasi dan pencegahan awal terhadap perilaku yang tidak bisa diterima, sehingga memudahkan perusahaan untuk melindungi reputasinya, mengurangi kerugian keuangan, meningkatkan semangat kerja karyawan dan menurunkan angka keluar-masuk pegawai.
Bagian tidak terpisahkan dari pendekatan perilaku etis perusahaan adalah sistem yang kuat untuk mencegah bentuk suap dan korupsi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung. Pada 2003, Sidang Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa mengadopsi Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Melawan Korupsi. Dalam dokumen konvensi tersebut, Sekretaris Jenderal PBB Kofi Annan menyatakan bahwa, “Korupsi sangat menyakiti negara miskin dengan mengalihkan dana yang diperuntukkan bagi pembangunan, sehingga melemahkan kemampuan suatu Pemerintah untuk memberikan layanan dasar, memperbesar ketidaksetaraan dan ketidakadilan serta memutus bantuan dan investasi asing. Korupsi adalah unsur penting penyebab melemahnya kinerja ekonomi sekaligus hambatan besar bagi pengentasan kemiskinan dan pembangunan.”
Sektor pertambangan dikelompokkan sebagai salah satu sektor paling rawan korupsi. Perusahaan tambang harus memperoleh bermacam-macam lisensi dan persetujuan untuk mengeksplorasi dan mengembangkan sumber daya mineral. Beberapa pejabat pemerintah atau tokoh lain dengan pengaruh politik yang cukup untuk memblokir atau menunda proyek pertambangan bisa saja mencoba meminta suap dengan imbalan berupa kemudahan atas proses-proses tersebut. Praktik ini sangat marak ketika operasi pertambangan berada di negara-negara yang memiliki lingkungan peraturan dan supremasi hukum yang lemah.
Namun permasalahannya tidak bisa semata-mata dialamatkan kepada para pejabat pemerintah dan pejabat perantara lain yang tidak etis. Beberapa perusahaan tambang mengaku bersedia memberikan uang tunai atau memberikan hadiah tidak etis untuk membantu kelancaran bisnis mereka selama masa-masa sulit secara keuangan. Selain itu, perusahaan mungkin secara tidak langsung dan dalam beberapa kasus tidak sadar ikut andil dalam suap atau korupsi melalui hubungan mereka dengan agen, konsultan, atau mitra usaha patungan mereka.
Suap dan korupsi dapat dicegah atau dikurangi secara signifikan melalui implementasi program uji tuntas dan kepatuhan antikorupsi yang kuat dan transparan beserta langkah-langkah lain semisal transparansi seputar kontrak, pajak, dan pembayaran yang dilakukan ke negara-negara produsen. Uji tuntas antikorupsi membantu perusahaan memberantas korupsi di dalam bisnis mereka sendiri dan mengurangi potensi dikait-kaitkan dengan korupsi lewat tindakan pihak ketiga, seperti agen, konsultan, atau pemasok. Uji tuntas tersebut kini menjadi ekspektasi di banyak negara, dan perusahaan juga secara sukarela mengambil langkah-langkah untuk mengimplementasikan program antikorupsi untuk meminimalkan risiko mereka.
Masyarakat rendah korupsi akan menciptakan lingkungan investasi yang lebih mudah diprediksi dan stabil bagi banyak perusahaan, dan membantu negara-negara produsen untuk memaksimalkan keuntungan secara nyata dari pengembangan sumber daya alamnya.
Perusahaan berkomitmen untuk mencegah segala bentuk suap dan korupsi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat perusahaan bahwa ia memiliki:
a. Meresmikan komitmen, yang didukung oleh manajemen senior, untuk mencegah segala bentuk suap dan korupsi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung?
b. Menetapkan tanggung jawab dan akuntabilitas ke manajemen senior atau direksi untuk menjalankan komitmen ini?
c. Mengalokasikan sumber daya keuangan dan pegawai untuk mengimplementasikan komitmen ini?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan melakukan tindakan untuk memperbaiki kinerjanya terkait antisuap dan antikorupsi.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang pencegahan suap dan korupsi, termasuk jumlah dan sifat/bentuk insiden dan tindakan yang diambil sebagai responsnya?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil untuk mencegah semua bentuk suap dan korupsi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil guna mencegah segala bentuk suap dan korupsi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan mengambil tindakan untuk menyempurnakan efektivitas mekanisme pelaporan pelanggarannya untuk melaporkan keprihatinan terhadap perilaku yang tidak etis.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang kelancaran fungsi dan aplikasi mekanisme pelaporan pelanggarannya, termasuk jumlah dan sifat/bentuk insiden dan tindakan yang diambil sebagai responsnya?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas mekanisme pelaporan pelanggaran?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan efektivitas mekanisme pelaporan pelanggarannya?
B.02 Pertanggungjawaban dan Keragaman Direksi dan Manajemen Senior
Kelangsungan perusahaan adalah konsep yang sudah diterima oleh perusahaan di seluruh dunia. Konsep ini semakin dipandang penting bagi kesuksesan perusahaan jangka panjang. Konsep ini mencakup bahwa perusahaan menghargai tanggung jawab fundamental di bidang seperti hak asasi manusia, tenaga kerja, lingkungan, dan antikorupsi, dan mengambil tindakan untuk mendukung dan menciptakan nilai bagi masyarakat di sekelilingnya.
Perusahaan semakin gencar mengembangkan kebijakan yang memperlihatkan komitmen pada perilaku yang bertanggung jawab atas permasalahan ekonomi, lingkungan, sosial (termasuk hak asasi manusia), dan tata kelola (EESG). Namun kebijakan tidak selalu mengejawantah menjadi perubahan positif jangka panjang di negara-negara produsen atau pergeseran berkelanjutan pada budaya dan nilai-nilai perusahaan menuju perilaku yang lebih bertanggung jawab. Keberhasilan implementasi kebijakan biasanya membutuhkan komitmen, kepemimpinan, dan akuntabilitas dari jajaran direksi perusahaan dan manajer senior (di tingkat perusahaan dan lokasi tambang), serta pegawai yang penuh dedikasi di tingkat operasional untuk memastikan penerapan keputusan strategis di seluruh operasi perusahaan.
Pencapaian tujuan perusahaan untuk melindungi nilai-nilai lingkungan, hak asasi manusia, kesehatan dan kesejahteraan sosio-ekonomi masyarakat dapat diwujudkan dengan lebih baik ketika menerapkan mekanisme akuntabilitas internal dan insentif untuk kinerja, yang dapat diterapkan pada pengambil kebijakan di tingkat perusahaan dan pada para manajer serta pekerja di tingkat lokasi tambang. Tindakan semacam itu dapat membantu meningkatkan kinerja dan sikap di tingkat operasional terhadap relevansi komitmen EESG, serta membantu menanamkannya ke dalam budaya dan nilai-nilai perusahaan.
Komposisi direksi perusahaan dan manajemen senior juga dapat memengaruhi keberhasilan implementasi tujuan EESG. Anggota direksi dan manajer dengan gender, etnis, dan usia yang berbeda, serta beraneka ragam latar belakang dan kualifikasi, termasuk permasalahan ekonomi, lingkungan, dan sosial, dapat berkontribusi pada spektrum pengetahuan yang luas tentang kemungkinan pola pengaruh faktor eksternal terhadap perusahaan.
Berbagai penelitian telah menunjukkan bahwa keragaman gender di jajaran direksi dan jabatan manajemen senior dapat menghasilkan kinerja keuangan yang secara keseluruhan lebih baik, tata kelola perusahaan yang bagus, kepatuhan pada standar EESG global yang lebih besar, kinerja yang lebih baik dalam hal keberlanjutan, inovasi yang lebih besar, manajemen risiko yang lebih baik, dan reputasi perusahaan yang lebih bagus.
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk meminta pertanggungjawaban direksi dan manajer senior secara perseorangan atas pelaksanaan bisnis yang bertanggung jawab terkait masalah-masalah ESG.
Di tingkat korporasi, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri sudah mengambil langkah-langkah khusus untuk memastikan:
a. Penetapan peran dan tanggung jawab yang jelas bagi masing-masing anggota dewan direksi dan manajer senior atas pelaksanaan bisnis yang bertanggung jawab terkait permasalahan ESG?
b. Berlakunya persyaratan kompetensi bagi masing-masing anggota manajemen senior utama dan jabatan direksi yang bertanggung jawab atas permasalahan ESG?
c. Pertanggungjawaban masing-masing anggota direksi dan manajer senior atas kelancaran hal-hal tersebut di atas melalui langkah langkah yang terdokumentasi?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan mengambil tindakan untuk meningkatkan keberimbangan gendernya di tingkat direksi dan manajemen senior.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, berdasarkan target dan lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang persentase perempuan di tingkat direksi dan manajemen senior?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas intervensinya (program, prakarsa, dll.) untuk meningkatkan keberimbangan gender di tingkat manajemen senior?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan keberimbangan gender di tingkat manajemen senior?
B.03 Pengungkapan Kontrak
Negara-negara produsen menerbitkan lisensi dan mengadakan perjanjian dengan perusahaan untuk melakukan eksplorasi atau eksploitasi sumber daya mineral (misalnya, melalui lelang, sewa, surat izin, perjanjian konsesi, perjanjian eksplorasi dan eksploitasi, perjanjian pengembangan). Pemerintah juga menandatangani kontrak atau merundingkan perjanjian dengan perusahaan untuk menyusun beragam syarat dan ketentuan yang berkaitan dengan pengembangan mineral, seperti keuntungan keuangan yang akan diterima oleh negara dari pajak, bagi hasil, bagi keuntungan, dan royalti; ketentuan yang berkaitan dengan infrastruktur penting atau investasi lain; dan syarat yang dapat menimbulkan implikasi bagi warga masyarakat, seperti langkah-langkah perlindungan lingkungan atau hak terkait pemanfaatan lahan atau masyarakat lokal yang terpaksa pindah.
Pemerintah memikul tanggung jawab untuk mengelola sumber daya alam negaranya dengan cara-cara yang sesuai dengan kepentingan pembangunan nasional dan kesejahteraan rakyat. Sayangnya, korupsi, kurangnya informasi, atau tantangan kapasitas kelembagaan telah menghambat beberapa negara sehingga tidak dapat merundingkan kesepakatan terbaik bagi warganya – sering berakibat pada hilangnya potensi pendapatan senilai jutaan atau miliaran dolar.
Kontrak yang mengatur pertambangan atau proyek ekstraktif yang lain bisa jadi merupakan peraturan paling signifikan yang mengatur keuntungan yang diterima oleh negara-negara produsen dan masyarakat terdampak, tetapi sayangnya, dokumen kepentingan publik ini sering disembunyikan dari pengetahuan publik. Menurut sebuah laporan pada 2015 oleh Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (Prakarsa Transparansi Industri Ekstraktif), meskipun beberapa negara memublikasikan kontrak, transparansi bukan sesuatu yang bersifat universal. Dalam beberapa kasus, ada larangan hukum atau kontraktual terkait pengungkapan (membuka isi kontrak), dan dalam kasus lain, meskipun undang-undang mendukung dilakukannya pengungkapan, hanya sebagian saja atau bahkan tidak terjadi pengungkapan/keterbukaan.
Akan tetapi semakin disadari bahwa pengungkapan/keterbukaan kontrak diperlukan untuk mendorong manajemen yang bertanggung jawab dan tata kelola sumber daya alam yang baik, serta memacu pertumbuhan dan pembangunan ekonomi dengan memastikan iklim persaingan usaha yang sehat bagi perusahaan. Dengan secara sistematis menjadikan kontrak tersedia secara publik, para pejabat pemerintah memiliki lebih banyak perangkat dan insentif yang lebih besar untuk merundingkan kontrak yang menjamin diterimanya jatah keuntungan yang adil oleh negara mereka dari pengembangan mineral. Transparansi kontrak memungkinkan masyarakat sipil untuk memainkan peran yang lebih besar dalam perdebatan seputar cara negara berkembang mengelola sumber daya alam yang tidak dapat diperbarui, dan juga dapat membantu perusahaan serta pemerintah untuk memperlihatkan kepada rakyatnya nilai proyek pertambangan dan ekspektasi penghasilan realistis dari suatu kurun waktu. Selain mengungkapkan kontrak, pengungkapan dokumen terkait (termasuk, misalnya, catatan alokasi dan proses pemberian izin serta informasi tentang syarat kontrak berikut implementasinya) dapat mendorong akuntabilitas dan transparansi yang lebih kuat.
Semakin banyak perusahaan dan asosiasi tambang yang mendukung praktik publikasi kontrak, dengan menyatakan bahwa publikasi tersebut menjamin iklim persaingan usaha yang sehat bagi perusahaan dan membantu meningkatkan kualitas hubungan mereka dengan masyarakat secara umum dan memenuhi ekspektasi warga secara lebih efektif. Beberapa perusahaan juga mengambil peran kepemimpinan dalam memajukan transparansi dengan mengungkapkan kontrak di negara-negara yang tidak mewajibkannya, sedangkan perusahaan yang lain secara proaktif mencantumkan klausul perkecualian dalam kontrak dengan pemerintah yang memungkinkan pengungkapan publik.
Perusahaan secara publik mengungkapkan seluruh dokumen hukum yang memberinya hak untuk melakukan ekstraksi sumber daya mineral di lokasi tambang.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa:
a. Secara publik mengungkapkan semua dokumen hukumnya (misalnya, kontrak, surat izin, lisensi, sewa, konvensi, perjanjian) yang memberinya hak untuk melakukan ekstraksi sumber daya mineral di lokasi tambang?
b. Membuat dokumen tersebut tersedia bebas di situs web perusahaan?
c. Secara publik mengungkapkan semua dokumen ini sebagai dokumen dengan teks lengkap tanpa redaksi ulang atau pengurangan?
B.04 Transparansi Pajak
Pajak terkait pertambangan merupakan sumber pendapatan yang besar sangat penting bagi negara-negara kaya mineral. Pendapatan dari pajak memungkinkan negara melakukan belanja untuk layanan publik dan infrastruktur vital. Dalam hal negara negara berkembang, basis pajak yang kuat dapat mengurangi ketergantungan pada bantuan asing sehingga memungkinkan negara lebih mandiri dalam mengatur pembangunannya sendiri. Jika dikelola secara cermat, pajak yang diterima sepanjang siklus operasional pertambangan dapat membiayai prakarsa pembangunan ekonomi dan sosial yang akan terus memberikan manfaat jangka panjang setelah operasi tambang berhenti.
Banyak dijumpai bukti bahwa kebanyakan negara produsen tidak berhasil memungut persentase pajak yang besar dari industri ekstraktif, terutama dari perusahaan dengan operasi di banyak negara. Perusahaan mampu menghindari pembayaran pajak melalui taktik yang patut dipertanyakan tetapi sah secara hukum, seperti manipulasi harga transfer (dengan mengalihkan laba ke anak perusahaan di yurisdiksi rendah-pajak atau rahasia), pengecohan harga perdagangan (dengan menyatakan nilai produk yang diekspor di bawah harga yang sesungguhnya), atau melalui penggunaan struktur kepemilikan yang kompleks. Penggelapan pajak juga dapat terjadi melalui aktivitas ilegal, seperti penyelundupan.
Negara-negara berkembang juga bisa kecolongan pendapatan pajak dengan memberikan insentif seperti pembebasan PPh Badan dalam waktu tertentu (tax holiday) atau pengurangan tarif pajak. Sering terjadi, insentif pajak di negara-negara produsen tidak disusun berdasarkan analisis biaya-manfaat yang tepat, tetapi justru didorong oleh tekanan untuk menciptakan iklim investasi yang lebih menarik dibandingkan dengan negara tetangga. Selain itu, mengingat ciri operasi tambang yang memiliki lokasi spesifik, ada banyak sekali contoh yang menunjukkan bahwa investasi tetap akan terjadi tanpa insentif pajak. Meskipun tidak melanggar hukum, insentif pajak yang terlalu murah hati atau diberikan dengan maksud yang tidak baik bisa dipandang dengan kecurigaan, menciptakan masalah legitimasi bagi pemerintah dan perusahaan, dan tidak ada kontribusinya bagi peningkatan iklim investasi di sebuah negara.
Banyak pekerjaan rumah yang harus dikerjakan untuk membangun kebijakan, struktur, dan kapasitas pemberlakuan pajak dengan cara yang menarik investasi dan memberikan keuntungan ekonomi bagi negara. Tidak ada definisi tunggal transparansi pajak, tetapi biasanya meliputi pengungkapan informasi tentang besaran keuntungan yang diraup oleh sebuah perusahaan di setiap negara tempatnya beroperasi dan besaran pajak yang dibayar di setiap negara, dan pelaporan tentang strategi pajak, seperti pendekatan perpajakan, detail tentang manajemen risiko pajak dan perencanaan pajak, dan informasi tentang suaka pajak.
Perusahaan global semakin menyadari bahwa komitmen kebijakan terkait pajak dan pengungkapan strategi dan praktik pajak secara proaktif di tingkat negara sangatlah penting dalam membangun dan memelihara hubungan serta kredibilitas dengan para investor dan negara-negara produsen, berikut peningkatan iklim investasi yang stabil di negara-negara tempat mereka beroperasi.
Perusahaan mempraktikkan transparansi pajak di semua yurisdiksi pajaknya.
Di tingkat korporasi, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri secara publik:
a. Mengungkapkan struktur perusahaan yang mencantumkan semua yurisdiksi pajak yang menjadi wilayah pendaftaran bagi badan hukum perusahaan dan nama (misalnya, nama anak perusahaan atau cabang perusahaan) yang digunakan di tempat tersebut?
b. Laporan tentang pendekatannya terhadap transparansi pajak, termasuk strategi yang berkaitan dengan eksistensinya di yurisdiksi rendah-pajak?
c. Mengungkapkan semua insentif pajak dan pengurangan pajak yang diterima di tingkat lokal dan nasional di semua yurisdiksi pajak tempatnya mendaftarkan badan hukum perusahaan?
B.05 Manfaat Kepemilikan
Identitas orang-orang yang sesungguhnya memiliki, mengontrol, dan memetik keuntungan dari aktivitas perusahaan tambang - para pemilik manfaat yang sebenarnya - tidak selalu diungkapkan. Dalam beberapa kasus, mereka tersembunyi di balik rantai perusahaan atau entitas swasta di berbagai negara.
Ketika kepemilikan sebuah perusahaan tidak jelas, muncullah lahan subur bagi korupsi, penggelapan pajak, pencucian uang, dan jenis-jenis lain malapraktik keuangan, yang lantas dapat menimbulkan dampak ekonomi, lingkungan, atau sosial yang negatif. Misalnya, seseorang dengan saham kepemilikan di sebuah perusahaan bisa jadi memegang posisi untuk memengaruhi pemberian kontrak pemerintah, lisensi pertambangan, atau surat izin ke perusahaan yang tidak memenuhi syarat, atau menyetujui syarat dan ketentuan yang terlalu longgar. Identitas para pemilik manfaat yang sebenarnya itu penting diketahui demi menangkal korupsi dan menjamin agar perusahaan yang sudah mendapatkan lisensi memiliki niat dan kepakaran keuangan dan teknis yang diperlukan untuk mengembangkan, beroperasi, dan menutup proyek pertambangan secara bertanggung jawab.
Pemerintah, lembaga keuangan, prakarsa sukarela, dan bahkan para eksekutif perusahaan tambang semakin mendukung dan bergerak ke arah transparansi yang lebih baik dalam hal kepemilikan manfaat perusahaan yang sebenarnya. Misalnya, EITI (Prakarsa Transparansi Industri Ekstraktif) telah menerapkan persyaratan bahwa pada 2020 “semua negara yang melaksanakan EITI harus memastikan semua perusahaan minyak, gas, dan pertambangan yang mengajukan penawaran, beroperasi, atau berinvestasi dalam proyek-proyek ekstraktif di negara mereka mengungkapkan para pemilik yang sebenarnya,” dan membeberkan tingkat kepemilikan serta detail tentang pola kepemilikan atau pengendaliannya (misalnya, melalui persentase kepemilikan saham di perusahaan, atau kontrol melalui kesepakatan kontrak atau surat kuasa).
Pengungkapan kepemilikan manfaat yang sebenarnya secara proaktif dengan cepat menjadi praktik standar di dalam industri ekstraktif. Pengungkapan tersebut menunjukkan komitmen pada transparansi dan integritas pemberian lisensi mineral dan proses kontrak. Pengungkapan juga akan membantu membangun rasa percaya yang lebih besar dari pemangku kepentingan pertambangan, membantu menghindari risiko korupsi dan penggelapan pajak, dan memudahkan pemerintah untuk menilai kredibilitas proposal pertambangan dengan lebih baik sehingga meningkatkan iklim investasi bagi sektor pertambangan secara global.
Perusahaan mengungkapkan para pemilik manfaat yang sebenarnya.
Di tingkat korporasi, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri secara publik:
a. Mengungkapkan nama-nama pemilik manfaat yang sebenarnya (yaitu, tidak hanya pemegang saham langsung), dengan memerinci tingkat kepemilikan ambang batas yang berlaku pada pengungkapan ini?
b. Mengungkapkan pola kepemilikan dan pelaksanaan kontrol?
c. Mengidentifikasi para penerima manfaat yang merupakan orang-orang dengan ekspos politik dan mengungkapkan pemutakhiran informasi secara rutin?
B.06 Pembayaran ke Negara-Negara Produsen
Pemerintah memberikan hak kepada perusahaan tambang untuk melakukan eksplorasi dan eksploitasi sumber daya mineral, dan, sebagai imbalannya, perusahaan membayar pajak, royalti, biaya lisensi, bonus, atau memberikan kontribusi lain sebagai kompensasi atas kekayaan mineral yang diekstrak. Pembayaran oleh perusahaan tambang dapat menjadi sumber pendapatan yang besar bagi negara-negara berkembang, dan berpotensi melecut pertumbuhan ekonomi dan pembangunan sosial.
Informasi tentang pembayaran ke pemerintah sering tidak tersedia secara publik. Transparansi yang lebih besar dari perusahaan tambang akan membantu pemerintah dan masyarakat mengetahui apakah perusahaan memenuhi kewajiban kontraknya, dan memungkinkan perusahaan untuk menunjukkan kontribusi ekonominya kepada pekerja, masyarakat lokal, dan perekonomian nasional secara umum.
Umum disepakati bahwa transparansi pembayaran yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan ekstraktif kepada pemerintah dapat meningkatkan tata kelola yang baik dengan meniadakan kondisi-kondisi yang memicu korupsi dan penyalahgunaan pendapatan. Pengelolaan pendapatan mineral yang lebih baik, pada gilirannya, meningkatkan potensi untuk mengurangi angka kemiskinan dan mendorong perekonomian yang berkelanjutan. Pengungkapan pembayaran juga menjadi cara negara untuk mengurangi risiko politik dan menciptakan lingkungan investasi yang lebih stabil.
Dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir ini, berbagai upaya peningkatan transparansi pembayaran telah mendapatkan perhatian. Secara khusus, EITI (Prakarsa Transparansi Industri Ekstraktif), sebuah standar global yang mendorong manajemen sumber daya minyak, gas, dan mineral secara terbuka dan bertanggung jawab, dan berbagai regulasi di Uni Eropa dan Kanada, telah menetapkan kewajiban hukum bagi banyak perusahaan tambang untuk melaporkan pembayaran yang dilakukan kepada badan-badan pemerintah subnasional dan nasional, dan untuk mengungkapkan pembayaran tersebut untuk setiap negara tempatnya beroperasi.
Pengungkapan tingkat proyek juga menjadi praktik standar di banyak negara maju, dan ada imbauan untuk melakukan pelaporan serupa yang berbasis proyek di wilayah lain. Masyarakat yang tinggal di dekat area pertambangan merasakan bermacam macam dampak sosial dan lingkungan, tetapi mereka sering tidak mendapatkan dana yang memadai untuk mengurangi dampak dan mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi meskipun mereka secara hukum berhak menerima persentase pendapatan yang dihasilkan oleh proyek-proyek pertambangan.
Akses ke data pendapatan baik di tingkat negara maupun tingkat proyek memudahkan pemerintah lokal untuk memantau kepatuhan perusahaan pada kewajiban kontrak, dan memungkinkan masyarakat lokal untuk melacak hak hukum mereka dan meminta pertanggungjawaban pemerintah jika pendapatan tidak dialokasikan sebagaimana mestinya.
Di negara-negara yang belum menerapkan persyaratan di tingkat proyek, perusahaan yang menyatakan kesediaan untuk mengungkapkan pembayaran dapat meningkatkan kepercayaan dan dukungan serta memungkinkan masyarakat di negara negara produsen untuk menjadi lebih tahu tentang pendapatan yang diterima dari pertambangan dan pola pembelanjaan atas pendapatan tersebut.
Perusahaan secara publik mengungkapkan semua pembayaran yang dilakukannya ke pemerintah subnasional dan nasional, dengan memberikan data terpilah di tingkat proyek.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa:
a. Secara publik mengungkapkan informasi yang terpilah di tingkat proyek tentang semua pembayaran yang dilakukan ke pemerintah subnasional dan nasional?
b. Membuat informasi ini tersedia bebas di situs web utama perusahaan?
c. Memutakhirkan informasi ini setiap tahun?
B.07 Praktik-Praktik Lobi
Di banyak negara, lobi memainkan peran menonjol dalam pengambilan kebijakan. Para pelobi swasta, kelompok industri, dan organisasi masyarakat sipil menempuh beragam cara untuk memengaruhi politisi dan pembuat keputusan. Namun kegiatan lobi sering tidak diatur dalam regulasi sehingga kepentingan adikuasa berpeluang mengerahkan pengaruh yang tidak semestinya melalui praktik-praktik yang korup atau mencurigakan. Kurangnya transparansi dan akuntabilitas lobi secara umum menimbulkan kecurigaan bahwa perusahaan, baik secara mandiri maupun melalui badan-badan industri, mendukung peraturan yang tidak mendukung kepentingan terbaik masyarakat.
Perusahaan tambang bisa mengambil langkah-langkah proaktif untuk membantu mendorong integritas dan kepercayaan yang lebih besar pada proses pengambilan keputusan publik serta menumbuhkan kepercayaan yang lebih besar dari para pemangku kepentingan. Misalnya, secara sukarela mengungkapkan informasi yang berkaitan dengan kebijakan dan praktik lobi, serta kontribusi/sumbangan politik mereka. Mereka juga dapat mengungkapkan posisi lobi, yang tidak hanya menunjukkan kesediaan bersikap transparan, tetapi juga membeberkan bidang-bidang kepentingan bersama dengan pemangku kepentingan, dan memberikan peluang kerja sama untuk mengembangkan kebijakan publik yang dapat melayani masyarakat terdampak, negara-negara produsen, dan juga industri pertambangan.
Meskipun merupakan aktivitas yang sah dan menjadi bagian penting dari proses demokrasi, lobi bukanlah satu-satunya sarana bagi perusahaan tambang untuk memengaruhi kebijakan pertambangan dan reformasi kelembagaan atau ekonomi. Banyak perusahaan tambang terlibat dalam kemitraan dengan pemerintah dan pemangku kepentingan yang lain untuk membantu meningkatkan kapasitas pemerintah di negara produsen untuk mengelola sumber daya mineral dan mengembangkan peluang ekonomi.
Transparansi yang lebih baik dalam lobi dan keterlibatan dalam dialog multipemangku kepentingan untuk meningkatkan transparansi mineral dan tata kelola sumber daya merupakan sarana penting untuk membangun kepercayaan pemangku kepentingan, memberantas suap dan korupsi, dan menciptakan iklim investasi yang lebih stabil dan menarik.
Jika memungkinkan, perusahaan secara publik mengungkapkan praktik-praktik lobi dan posisinya di semua yurisdiksi.
Di tingkat korporasi, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri secara publik:
a. Mengungkapkan peran dan tanggung jawab orang-orang yang terlibat dalam aktivitas lobi di semua yurisdiksi?
b. Mengungkapkan materi dari aktivitas lobi berikut hasil yang dicari?
c. Mengungkapkan nama-nama pejabat publik atau institusi yang terlibat?
B.08 Penandatanganan Kontrak dan Pemerolehan Sumber Daya yang Bertanggung Jawab
Muncul ekspektasi global yang makin besar bahwa perusahaan tidak hanya menunjukkan tingginya tanggung jawab mereka dalam hal hak asasi manusia, sosial, dan lingkungan hidup, tetapi juga menuntut hal yang sama dari mitra usaha serta rantai pasok mereka.
Perusahaan tambang sering mengadakan kontrak dengan perusahaan lain yang memberikan layanan spesialis, seperti pengelasan reparasi, kerja mekanik, dan pemeliharaan fasilitas. Jasa keamanan juga sering dialihkan ke pihak luar yang dikontrak. Dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir, kekurangan tenaga kerja atau upaya pemangkasan biaya juga telah meningkatkan penggunaan pekerja kontrak untuk operasi pertambangan inti.
Penggunaan tenaga kerja kontrak menimbulkan implikasi bagi perusahaan tambang. Perekrutan pekerja melalui kontraktor bisa memunculkan masalah kesehatan dan keselamatan kerja yang harus dikelola. Selain itu, praktik ketenagakerjaan, sosial, atau lingkungan yang buruk oleh kontraktor memunculkan risiko reputasi dan keuangan bagi perusahaan tambang. Misalnya, ketimpangan upah dan kondisi kerja antara pekerja dengan kontraktor menjadi perhatian akibat ketidaksetaraan inheren, dan juga karena ketimpangan tersebut telah menimbulkan protes keras dan penutupan sementara tambang.
Perusahaan tambang juga menghadapi risiko yang berkaitan dengan praktik pemasoknya, seperti gangguan pasokan dan rusaknya reputasi yang timbul karena kecelakaan, permasalahan ketenagakerjaan, korupsi, hubungan dengan kelompok bersenjata atau aktivitas ilegal, pelanggaran HAM, protes masyarakat, atau upaya hukum yang berkaitan dengan ketidakpatuhan pemasok pada peraturan sosial atau lingkungan.
Perusahaan dapat meminimalkan risiko bagi pekerja, masyarakat, lingkungan, dan reputasinya sendiri dengan menilai risiko sosial, lingkungan, ketenagakerjaan, dan HAM yang berkaitan dengan pemasok dan kontraktor, serta memastikan kontraktor, subkontraktor, dan pemasok berkomitmen dan mengimplementasikan standar sosial, lingkungan, dan etika yang tinggi dalam kegiatan mereka serta di sepanjang rantai pasok mereka sendiri.
Pendekatan ini semakin banyak ditempuh oleh perusahaan tambang terkemuka. Misalnya, banyak sekali perusahaan tambang menerapkan kode perilaku yang berlaku sama bagi karyawan, kontraktor, subkontraktor, dan pemasok, meskipun kode perilaku ini sering tidak mengikat. Akibatnya, kini beberapa perusahaan tambang memasukkan persyaratan sosial dan lingkungan ke dalam kontrak bilateral untuk menciptakan kewajiban yang mengikat secara hukum. Beberapa perusahaan juga melakukan audit untuk menilai kepatuhan dan mengevaluasi seberapa baik kontraktor, subkontraktor, dan pemasok mengelola dampak yang mereka timbulkan dan dampak yang mungkin timbul dalam rantai pasok mereka sendiri.
Selain mencantumkan ekspektasi ke dalam perjanjian, perusahaan tambang menanamkan sumber daya pada pelatihan kontraktor, subkontraktor, dan pemasok untuk membantu mereka memenuhi persyaratan perusahaan. Program ini saling menguntungkan: perusahaan tambang mengurangi risiko ketenagakerjaan dan risiko rantai pasok serta menciptakan hubungan yang lebih stabil dan andal; sementara itu, pemasok, kontraktor, dan subkontraktor dapat mengurangi risiko mereka masing-masing, membangun kapasitas dan berpotensi mendapatkan akses ke keuangan rantai pasok yang lebih kompetitif.
Negara-negara produsen juga meraup keuntungan dari prakarsa di atas. Perusahaan asal negara produsen yang dapat memenuhi standar sosial dan lingkungan yang tinggi akan lebih mampu bersaing dan masuk ke dalam rantai pasok global yang bertanggung jawab. Selain itu, jika kontraktor, subkontraktor, dan pemasok pertambangan dituntut memenuhi standar lingkungan, sosial, HAM, dan ketenagakerjaan yang tinggi, seperti memastikan tempat kerja yang aman dan memberikan gaji yang layak, maka kehidupan para pekerja dan keluarga mereka akan lebih baik, dan pertambangan akan memberikan keuntungan positif yang lebih besar bagi perekonomian dan masyarakat lokal.
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk mengidentifikasi dan menilai risiko hak asasi manusia, tenaga kerja, dan lingkungan yang berkaitan dengan pemasok dan kontraktornya.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa ia memiliki sistem untuk mengidentifikasi dan menilai risiko yang terkait dengan pemasoknya? dan kontraktor pada:
a. Masalah hak asasi manusia?
b. Masalah tenaga kerja?
c. Masalah lingkungan?
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.
Siklus Hidup Manajemen
Daur hidup pertambangan bisa berpuluh-puluh tahun, dan ada sejumlah tahap daur hidup yang khas dalam pengembangan dan penutupan pertambangan yang bertanggung jawab. Prosesnya dimulai dari eksplorasi mineral. Jika deposit bijih mineral berpotensi layak-tambang berhasil diidentifikasi, perusahaan tambang lantas bisa merancang dan mengkaji kelayakan pengembangan tambang dari sisi teknis dan keuangan. Jika perusahaan memutuskan untuk menjalankan sebuah proyek (Lihat C.02), dan menerima persetujuan, perusahaan tambang pun masuk ke tahap pengembangan atau implementasi, yang mencakup pembangunan dan pengoperasian pertambangan. Terakhir, ketika bijih mineral sudah diekstraksi, pertambangan memasuki tahap penutupan, yang bisa berlangsung bertahun-tahun atau bahkan berpuluh-puluh tahun jika masalah lingkungan jangka panjang tetap belum beres di lokasi tambang.
Uji tuntas sebaiknya dilakukan di sepanjang tahap siklus hidup pertambangan untuk memastikan adanya minimalisasi risiko terhadap perusahaan, masyarakat, dan lingkungan, maksimalisasi peluang bagi ekstraksi yang efisien dan berkelanjutan, dan pemberlakuan pengamanan untuk menjamin kesehatan sosial dan ekonomi yang berkelanjutan dan setelah penambangan bagi Masyarakat yang terdampak berikut perlindungan terhadap lingkungan. Secara khusus, perusahaan perlu bekerja sama dengan masyarakat dan pekerja untuk terlebih dahulu merencanakan transisi dari tahap konstruksi ke operasi, dan dari tahap operasi ke penutupan, untuk memastikan masyarakat dan pekerja memiliki masa depan sosial dan ekonomi yang layak di sepanjang siklus hidup pertambangan dan ketika pertambangan ditutup (Lihat C.05). Ketika perusahaan tambang memutuskan untuk menangguhkan operasinya selama kurun waktu tertentu atau tidak ditentukan berakhirnya, dan memosisikan aset dalam “pengawasan dan pemeliharaan”, pendekatan yang sama terhadap transisi akan menjamin bahwa pegawai mereka siap dan dibekali dengan berbagai alternatif atau langkah-langkah mitigasi (Lihat E.06).
Dalam beberapa kasus, sebuah perusahaan tambang tidak akan mengawasi proyek pertambangan sepanjang daur hidupnya. Setiap kali terjadi transfer kepemilikan tambang, proses uji tuntas harus dilakukan untuk memastikan pengungkapan dan pemahaman risiko dan kewajiban, dan kondisi keuangan memang aman dan memadai untuk mencegah dan mengelola dampak sosial serta lingkungan (Lihat C.06).
Siklus Hidup Manajemen
Kesejahteraan Masyarakat
Proyek pertambangan berpotensi mengubah masyarakat secara positif dan negatif. Keuntungan ekonomi mungkin bisa dipetik melalui penciptaan lapangan kerja dan peluang bagi bisnis lokal untuk memasok jasa atau produk ke pertambangan. Pada sisi lain, pertambangan juga dapat mengurangi atau merusak sumber daya alami yang memberikan sumber makanan, nafkah, dan layanan kepada masyarakat. Karakter sosial sebuah masyarakat juga bisa berubah akibat masuknya tenaga kerja pertambangan migran. Pendapatan dan keuntungan terkait pertambangan bisa jadi tidak didistribusikan secara merata, yang dapat menimbulkan konflik di dalam masyarakat dan bahkan keluarga. Jika digabungkan, dampak lingkungan dan sosial yang berkaitan dengan pertambangan bisa memicu pelanggaran berbagai hak asasi manusia.
Seperti halnya dengan hubungan jangka panjang, hubungan perusahaan-masyarakat merupakan hal yang kompleks. Perusahaan tambang sering menghadapi tantangan dalam memenuhi keinginan kelompok yang berbeda-beda sehingga tanpa perencanaan dan intervensi yang matang, konflik bisa dipastikan akan muncul. Perusahaan yang melakukan pendekatan pada masyarakat sejak awal-awal siklus hidup proyek dan menunjukkan kesediaan untuk melibatkan semua pemangku kepentingan secara terbuka dan penuh penghargaan berpeluang lebih besar untuk menumbuhkan kepercayaan. Dan perusahaan yang menerapkan sistem yang efektif untuk menerima dan menyelesaikan keluhan masyarakat akan lebih berpeluang mempertahankan hubungan yang positif dan berhasil mencegah atau mengatasi risiko dan dampak hak asasi manusia.
Penciptaan keuntungan ekonomi, lingkungan, dan sosial yang positif membutuhkan pelibatan aktif masyarakat di sepanjang siklus hidup pertambangan. Melalui kerja sama yang berkelanjutan dengan beraneka ragam pemangku kepentingan, termasuk kelompok marginal dan rentan di dalam perencanaan, perancangan, dan implementasi penanaman sumber daya di masyarakat yang disponsori tambang dan peluang terkait tambang, perusahaan tambang lebih bisa memastikan bahwa masyarakat yang ditinggalkan oleh usaha pertambangan adalah masyarakat yang sehat dan mampu bertahan hidup.
Kesejahteraan Masyarakat
Not available for 2021
Kondisi Kerja
Operasi tambang skala besar dapat menyediakan lapangan kerja bagi ratusan pekerja (karyawan dan pekerja kontrak). Namun, “pekerjaan yang layak,” seperti ditetapkan oleh Organisasi Buruh Internasional (ILO), tidak sekadar mencakup pekerjaan yang mapan. Pekerjaan yang layak meliputi pekerjaan yang memberikan pendapatan yang adil (Lihat 05); keamanan, kesehatan, dan keselamatan di tempat kerja (Lihat E.01); perlindungan sosial untuk keluarga; kebebasan bagi pekerja untuk menyatakan keprihatinan, mengorganisir diri, dan ikut serta dalam keputusan yang memengaruhi kehidupan mereka (Lihat E.04 dan E.07); dan kesamaan perlakuan serta peluang untuk memajukan semua pekerja (Lihat E.03).
Kebanyakan konsep di atas dikukuhkan sebagai hak asasi manusia yang diakui secara internasional di dalam delapan konvensi utama Organisasi Buruh Internasional (ILO) yang melindungi hak-hak dasar pekerja. Namun secara global, kondisi kerja yang membahayakan tetap ada, pekerja anak atau pekerja paksa dapat ditemukan di pertambangan dan di dalam rantai pasok pertambangan (Lihat E.02), dan diskriminasi serta ketidaksetaraan gender tetap menjadi tantangan pada banyak operasi pertambangan.
Beberapa perusahaan tambang mengakui bahwa penghormatan hak-hak pekerja dan penciptaan pekerjaan yang layak itu bagus bagi bisnis dan masyarakat. Produktivitas pertambangan akan meningkat ketika pekerjanya sehat secara fisik dan merasa dihargai serta mendapat dukungan. Selain itu, melalui penciptaan lapangan kerja yang aman dan terjamin serta peluang pelatihan, perusahaan tambang dapat membantu mengurangi angka kemiskinan dan memberikan peluang yang adil bagi pembangunan ekonomi dan sosial.
Kondisi Kerja
Not available for 2021
Tanggung Jawab Lingkungan
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).
Tanggung Jawab Lingkungan
F.01 Pemeliharaan Lingkungan
Pemeliharaan lingkungan merupakan pemahaman yang komprehensif dan manajemen yang efektif terhadap risiko dan peluang lingkungan yang penting yang berkaitan dengan perubahan iklim, emisi, manajemen limbah, konsumsi sumber daya, konservasi air, dan keanekaragaman hayati serta perlindungan jasa lingkungan.
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.
Perusahaan semakin giat menempuh pendekatan manajemen “Rencanakan, Lakukan, Periksa, Tindak Lanjuti” bersiklus terhadap perlindungan lingkungan. Elemen dasar di dalam jenis sistem manajemen lingkungan (EMS) ini meliputi: penetapan tujuan lingkungan, penilaian risiko dan dampak lingkungan potensial, pencegahan dan mitigasi dampak buruk, pelaksanaan pemantauan dan evaluasi lingkungan (M&E), dan pelaporan tentang tindakan dan efektivitasnya. Rencana manajemen lingkungan kemudian memandu tindakan yang diperlukan, dan dimutakhirkan ketika M&E atau perubahan proses pertambangan memunculkan kebutuhan atas strategi yang lebih efektif untuk mencapai tujuan lingkungan.
Meskipun penting, proses EMS yang andal itu tidak serta-merta cukup untuk menjamin perlindungan lingkungan yang juga harus memenuhi kebutuhan masyarakat yang terdampak. Timbul kesadaran yang semakin besar akan kesalingterkaitan di antara tantangan lingkungan, sosial, dan ekonomi yang mengadang dunia; dan bahwa solusi yang ditujukan untuk menghapus kemiskinan dan mendorong perlindungan lingkungan serta pertumbuhan ekonomi yang berkelanjutan membutuhkan perencanaan dan penilaian yang terpadu, dan sebuah pendekatan manajemen yang mempertimbangkan dampak langsung, tidak langsung, terpicu, dan kumulatif yang luas yang dapat ditimbulkan oleh proyek tertentu terhadap lanskap dan konteks regional yang lebih luas.
Penilaian Dampak Lingkungan (EIA) merupakan suatu alat, sering diwajibkan oleh undang-undang tetapi juga digunakan secara suka rela oleh beberapa perusahaan, untuk menilai dampak langsung, tidak langsung, dan kumulatif potensial dari proyek yang diusulkan, dan untuk mengevaluasi rancangan proyek alternatif. Pemutakhiran rutin penilaian ini (bukan semata-mata EIA satu kali) tentunya akan diperlukan untuk dijadikan masukan bagi strategi manajemen lingkungan perusahaan. Perusahaan yang berkomitmen untuk mengelola dampak lingkungannya secara efektif akan mengimplementasikan hierarki mitigasi yang sebisa mungkin memprioritaskan pencegahan dampak negatif, meminimalkan dampak yang tidak bisa dihindari, dan memulihkan lanskap serta sumber daya alam yang rusak menjadi ekosistem yang berfungsi seperti semula dan produktif yang dapat menopang tumbuhan, satwa liar, dan aktivitas manusia. Terakhir, hierarki mitigasi ini menuntut perusahaan agar mengompensasikan atau mengganti semua dampak sisa yang masih ada.
Ruang lingkup penilaian dampak lingkungan semakin mengalami perluasan melampaui lingkungan fisik. Penilaian terpadu yang menggabungkan kesehatan, kesejahteraan sosial, ekonomi, hak asasi manusia, budaya, dan psikologis serta lingkungan fisik, biologis, dan geokimia, memberikan pemahaman yang lebih holistik tentang hubungan timbal-balik yang kompleks antara umat manusia dengan lingkungan alami yang memengaruhi kesehatan dan kesejahteraan lingkungan dan manusia. Kesadaran ini membantu memastikan, jika memungkinkan, agar strategi mitigasi tidak semata-mata mengganti satu masalah dengan masalah yang lain lagi.
Selain itu, perencanaan di skala lanskap atau DAS yang lebih besar membantu pemerintah, perusahaan, dan masyarakat untuk mengidentifikasi tujuan pemanfaatan lahan atau sumber daya alam yang saling bersaing dan memahami dampak kumulatif yang negatif dari berbagai pembangunan. Informasi ini, pada gilirannya, mendukung rancangan dan implementasi proyek yang lebih optimal untuk memaksimalkan manfaat lingkungan saat ini dan di masa depan, berikut manfaat ekonomi dan sosial. Pemerintah semakin gencar mengembangkan Penilaian Lingkungan Strategis (SEA) nasionalnya sendiri untuk memastikan pertimbangan aspek-aspek lingkungan secara efektif di dalam pengembangan kebijakan dan program. Fakta ini memberikan kerangka kerja tambahan bagi perusahaan untuk menyelaraskan EIA-nya sendiri dengan prioritas dan bidang kepentingan nasional, sehingga melengkapi penyelarasan ekonomi lain.
Keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan merupakan komponen penting dari manajemen lingkungan yang efektif. Para pemangku kepentingan, termasuk anggota masyarakat terdampak dan perwakilan badan-badan pemerintah yang relevan, seyogianya dilibatkan ke dalam proses penilaian, pengembangan strategi mitigasi yang tepat, dan program pemantauan.
Secara bersama-sama, integrasi manajemen lingkungan dengan pertimbangan kemasyarakatan yang lebih luas, keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan yang bermakna, dan pengungkapan publik atas aktivitas manajemen lingkungan dapat meningkatkan akuntabilitas perusahaan, dan meningkatkan kemungkinan bahwa upaya-upayanya akan mendukung kesehatan dan sumber mata pencaharian masyarakat serta meninggalkan warisan lingkungan yang positif. Pemeliharaan lingkungan yang efektif, di samping melindungi nilai-nilai lingkungan dan sosial, berpeluang menciptakan hubungan pemangku kepentingan yang lebih baik, keterlibatan pekerja yang meningkat, manfaat keuangan, dan keunggulan kompetitif bagi perusahaan.
Perusahaan berkomitmen untuk mengelola dampak lingkungannya secara sistematis melalui pendekatan hierarki mitigasi.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat perusahaan bahwa ia memiliki:
a. Meresmikan komitmen, yang didukung oleh manajemen senior, untuk mengelola dampak lingkungannya secara sistematis melalui pendekatan hierarki mitigasi?
b. Menetapkan tanggung jawab dan akuntabilitas ke manajemen senior atau direksi untuk menjalankan komitmen ini?
c. Mengalokasikan sumber daya keuangan dan pegawai untuk mengimplementasikan komitmen ini?
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu melakukan dan mengungkapkan penilaian rutin terhadap dampak lingkungannya melalui pendekatan terpadu yang mempertimbangkan hubungan antara dampak sosio-ekonomi dengan dampak lingkungan.
Di tingkat korporasi, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri sudah menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya:
a. Mengidentifikasi kondisi dasar dan perubahan lingkungan melalui pendekatan terpadu?
b. Mengidentifikasi dan menilai dampak lingkungan dari aktivitasnya melalui pendekatan terpadu?
c. Menyajikan dan mendiskusikan hasil penilaian mereka tentang dampak lingkungan dengan masyarakat lokal secara rutin dan sistematis?
F.02 Manajemen Limbah Tambang
Penggalian atau peledakan bongkahan batu yang berisi bahan tambang mineral dan logam menghasilkan limbah bongkahan batu dalam jumlah besar yang sedikit atau tidak memiliki nilai ekonomi. Bijih yang tersisa, yang konsentrasi mineral dan logamnya berada di atas “kadar batas”, memasuki proses penggilingan dan pengolahan, untuk mengekstrak mineral dan logam dari bijih tersebut. Operasi tambang ini sering menggunakan zat zat kimia dan menghasilkan limbah residu dalam jumlah besar. Limbah tambang, dikenal sebagai tailing, pada prinsipnya terdiri dari remukan batu, air, dan zat-zat kimia pengolah. Limbah tambang biasanya disalurkan melalui pipa ke bendungan dengan permukaan luas untuk disimpan dalam bendungan urugan. Cairan limbah didaur ulang, menguap, atau mengering seiring waktu. Ketika fasilitas penyimpanan limbah tambang sudah penuh, limbah tambang bisa mengalami reklamasi, seperti penanaman pepohonan, untuk menstabilkan area yang bersangkutan.
Terdapat beragam risiko dan dampak yang berkaitan dengan fasilitas penyimpanan limbah tambang. Limbah tambang biasanya berisi zat-zat kimia pengolah residu dan kadar logam yang tinggi, yang sering timbul akibat karakteristik bijih itu sendiri. Fasilitas sangat rentan terhadap rembesan, yang dapat menyebabkan kontaminasi air tanah dan air permukaan. Bendungan bisa meliputi wilayah yang sebelumnya berupa tanah pertanian yang produktif atau habitat satwa liar. Limbah tambang kering bisa menimbulkan permasalahan debu yang serius bagi masyarakat yang tinggal di sekitarnya. Dan bendungan limbah tambang yang tidak stabil bisa mengalami kebocoran yang mengakibatkan bencana, dengan melepaskan limbah dalam jumlah besar yang bisa merusak sungai, mengubur rumah, menghancurkan sumber mata pencaharian, dan menimbulkan dampak serius bagi lingkungan dan masyarakat lokal.
Pembuangan limbah tambang ke aliran/genangan air (sungai, danau, laut) menimbulkan permasalahan lingkungan khusus dan juga risiko kesehatan bagi manusia. Misalnya, kadar logam yang tinggi, seperti tembaga, timbal, dan arsenik dapat menimbulkan keracunan akut langsung dan kronis serta bioakumulasi pada jaringan organ ikan yang bisa menimbulkan risiko bagi kesehatan manusia. Beberapa perusahaan telah mengembangkan standar internal yang mencegah pembuangan limbah ke sungai atau laut, dan beberapa bank besar telah menyatakan tidak akan membiayai perusahaan yang melakukan pembuangan limbah tambang ke laut dan/atau sungai.
Kegagalan bendungan limbah tambang yang terjadi belum lama ini dan menarik perhatian masyarakat telah mendorong beberapa peninjauan dan tindakan terhadap industri pertambangan oleh perusahaan tambang dan para pemangku kepentingan lain, meliputi pemerintah dan investor, yang diharapkan dapat menghasilkan perbaikan praktik yang akan membantu mencegah bencana yang akan datang.
Selain memastikan perencanaan, perancangan, pembangunan, dan pengelolaan fasilitas limbah tambang sesuai dengan standar tertinggi oleh para profesional yang kompeten, terdapat praktik manajemen penting yang lain yang dapat membantu mencegah dan meminimalkan dampak dari limbah tambang. Praktik manajemen tersebut meliputi: penetapan akuntabilitas dan tanggung jawab atas manajemen limbah tambang kepada jajaran tertinggi perusahaan; pengadopsian teknologi terbaik yang tersedia; pelaksanaan peninjauan internal terhadap kinerja fasilitas limbah tambang secara sering dan pemastian implementasi tindakan perbaikan sesuai jadwal; dan upaya memudahkan peninjauan mandiri terhadap investigasi lokasi tambang berikut pemilihan, perancangan, pembangunan, operasi, penutupan dan pascapenutupan fasilitas limbah tambang, disertai dengan pengungkapan hasil temuan secara publik.
Terlebih-lebih lagi, mengingat keputusan manajemen limbah tambang bisa menimbulkan implikasi jangka panjang bagi masyarakat dan sumber daya alami, semua pemangku kepentingan berkepentingan agar perusahaan melibatkan masyarakat yang berpotensi terdampak dan para pakar dari luar ketika menilai risiko yang berkaitan dengan beragam rancangan fasilitas limbah tambang, dan dalam perencanaan, pembangunan, dan pemantauan fasilitas limbah tambang. Risiko yang berkaitan dengan limbah tambang dapat bertahan selama ratusan tahun sehingga pengungkapan sistematis tentang lokasi pasti dan karakteristik semua fasilitas limbah tambang oleh perusahaan tambang memastikan data yang menjadi kepentingan-publik ini dapat diakses oleh semua pemangku kepentingan dan juga terdokumentasi bagi generasi masa depan.
Ada dorongan yang kuat bagi perusahaan tambang untuk mengurangi risiko yang berkaitan dengan fasilitas limbah tambang. Kegagalan, entah berupa bobolnya bendungan yang membawa bencana atau rembesan lambat zat-zat kimia ke dalam air, bisa menimbulkan risiko kesehatan dan keselamatan yang signifikan bagi masyarakat lokal, kerusakan lingkungan yang luas, dan biaya pembersihan serta pemulihan yang tinggi yang pada akhirnya jatuh ke pundak pemerintah negara produsen. Perusahaan yang terlibat dalam kesalahan manajemen fasilitas limbah tambang menderita kerugian keuangan yang sangat besar, menghadapi upaya hukum, kehilangan izin sosial untuk beroperasi, dan tidak hanya membawa kerusakan reputasi bagi diri mereka sendiri, tetapi juga bagi industri pertambangan secara keseluruhan.
Perusahaan berkomitmen untuk tidak menggunakan sungai, danau, atau laut untuk membuang limbah tambang.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat perusahaan bahwa ia memiliki:
a. Meresmikan komitmen, yang didukung oleh manajemen senior, untuk tidak menggunakan sungai, danau, atau laut untuk membuang limbah tambang?
b. Menetapkan tanggung jawab dan akuntabilitas ke manajemen senior atau direksi untuk menjalankan komitmen ini?
c. Mengalokasikan sumber daya keuangan dan pegawai untuk mengimplementasikan komitmen ini?
Perusahaan secara publik mengungkapkan informasi tentang lokasi dan keamanan semua fasilitas penyimpanan limbah tambangnya.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa:
a. Mengungkapkan secara publik jumlah dan lokasi akurat semua fasilitas penyimpanan limbah tambang (termasuk fasilitas yang saat ini masih aktif dan fasilitas yang sedang direhabilitasi atau sudah ditutup)?
b. Mengungkapkan secara publik metode pembangunan dan kategori bahaya (berdasarkan penilaian dampak) dari setiap fasilitas penyimpanan limbah tambangnya?
c. Membuat data tersebut tersedia secara bebas di situs web perusahaan?
Jika memungkinkan, perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan mengambil tindakan untuk menyempurnakan kinerjanya dalam menangani risiko potensial yang berkaitan dengan fasilitas limbah tambangnya, termasuk kegagalan pipa saluran limbah dan bendungan limbah tambang.
Jika memungkinkan, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang kinerjanya dalam menangani risiko potensial yang berkaitan dengan fasilitas limbah tambangnya, termasuk kegagalan pipa saluran limbah dan bendungan limbah tambang?
b. Menjalankan audit dan/atau peninjauan pihak ketiga terhadap efektivitas langkah-langkah yang sudah diambil untuk mengatasi risiko potensial yang berkaitan dengan fasilitas limbah tambangnya, termasuk rembesan dan kegagalan bendungan limbah tambang?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan dari audit pihak ketiga tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan efektivitas langkah-langkah yang sudah diambil untuk mengatasi risiko potensial yang berkaitan dengan fasilitas limbah tambangnya, termasuk kegagalan pipa saluran limbah dan bendungan limbah tambang?
F.03 Air
Air adalah masalah utama bagi pembangunan yang berkelanjutan dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Air sangat penting bagi kelangsungan hidup dan ketahanan pangan jangka panjang, dan berjalin berkelindan dengan pembangunan infrastruktur energi. Selain menjadi hak asasi manusia, air bersih mendukung populasi dan ekosistem yang lebih sehat dan lebih produktif.
Air adalah masalah kunci bagi industri pertambangan global. Akses ke pasokan air yang stabil sangat penting bagi operasi pertambangan, tetapi memastikan akses bisa menjadi tantangan tersendiri. Seiring dengan meningkatnya kecemasan global terhadap kelangkaan air dan meluasnya pertambangan ke wilayah yang lebih terbatas airnya, persaingan untuk memperebutkan sumber daya air dapat menimbulkan konflik yang liar dan kadang-kadang penuh kekerasan antara perusahaan tambang dengan masyarakat. Konflik ini sering dihubungkan dengan pelanggaran HAM berat, yang diderita secara tidak adil oleh anggota masyarakat yang terdampak.
Manajemen pembuangan air yang baik, yang berkaitan dengan manajemen bahan-bahan berbahaya dan limbah-tambang yang bertanggung jawab, sangat penting di pertambangan. Manajemen air terkait-tambang mencakup pemahaman tentang status kualitas dan kuantitas air saat ini beserta konteks manajemen di lingkungan sekitar tambang dan di daerah DAS atau tangkapan air yang lebih luas; penilaian risiko aktivitas pertambangan terhadap air permukaan dan air bawah tanah; dan pengembangan serta implementasi strategi untuk meminimalkan risiko dan dampak terhadap pengguna air dan ekosistem. Kuantitas dan kualitas air harus dipantau di lokasi tambang dan di lokasi hilir untuk menentukan apakah strategi mitigasi sudah efektif, dan perlu tidaknya tindakan perbaikan untuk meningkatkan hasil lingkungan.
Industri pertambangan juga semakin menyadari bahwa manajemen air yang efektif bergantung pada keterlibatan para pemangku kepentingan yang positif dan transparan. Dialog terus-menerus membantu masyarakat memahami kebutuhan air perusahaan, dan membantu perusahaan tambang memahami persyaratan penggunaan air masyarakat serta kebutuhan, ekspektasi, dan prioritas pemangku kepentingan yang berkaitan dengan penggunaan air dan perlindungan air.
Transparansi seputar dampak penggunaan air dan kualitas air menjadi ekspektasi bagi para pemangku kepentingan pertambangan, dan kini sudah menjadi praktik standar bagi perusahaan untuk melaporkan masalah air secara umum. Namun beberapa perusahaan menunjukkan keteladanan seputar transparansi air dengan menjadikan data pemantauan air dapat diakses oleh masyarakat yang terdampak dan khalayak umum.
Ketakutan akan pencemaran air bisa memicu perlawanan terhadap proyek-proyek pertambangan, dan peristiwa pencemaran aktual bisa merusak sumber mata pencaharian, merusak hubungan positif perusahaan-masyarakat, dan menciptakan biaya serta kewajiban hukum dan keuangan jangka pendek dan jangka panjang bagi perusahaan tambang. Konflik yang berkaitan dengan air menimbulkan risiko reputasi, operasional, hukum, kemanusiaan, dan keuangan bagi proyek-proyek pertambangan. Perusahaan tambang yang melibatkan masyarakat ke dalam perencanaan, manajemen, dan pemantauan air, serta transparan terkait dampak air lebih berpeluang mampu menumbuhkan kepercayaan dari masyarakat yang memang diperlukan untuk menghindari konflik dan menjaga izin sosial untuk beroperasi.
Implementasi praktik manajemen air yang terdepan dari segi teknis dan sosial, seperti meningkatkan efisiensi penggunaan air, juga dapat membantu perusahaan mengurangi biaya operasional dan denda lingkungan potensial, mempercepat proses perizinan, memfasilitasi perluasan pertambangan, mengamankan akses ke sumber daya (air, bijih tambang, tanah), dan mempertahankan atau meningkatkan reputasi perusahaan.
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu merancang dan mengimplementasikan strategi dan rencana pemeliharaan air, berdasarkan pendekatan daerah tangkapan air, untuk mengatasi keamanan air di wilayah yang terdampak bagi pengguna air saat ini dan yang akan datang serta lingkungan.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa:
a. Menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu mengembangkan strategi dan rencana pemeliharaan air, berdasarkan pendekatan daerah tangkapan air, untuk menghormati kebutuhan air dan hak pengguna air saat ini dan yang akan datang serta lingkungan?
b. Menerapkan sistem agar operasinya mampu mengajak konsultasi pengguna air yang berpotensi terdampak ke dalam pengembangan strategi dan rencana pemeliharaan air tersebut?
c. Melacak implementasi strategi pemeliharaan air ini secara sistematis?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan melakukan tindakan untuk memperbaiki kinerjanya dalam mengurangi konsumsi air.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, berdasarkan target dan lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang kinerjanya dalam mengurangi konsumsi air?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil untuk mengurangi konsumsi air?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil guna mengurangi konsumsi air?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan melakukan tindakan untuk memperbaiki kinerjanya dalam mengurangi dampak buruk terhadap kualitas air.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, berdasarkan target dan lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang kinerjanya dalam mengurangi dampak buruk terhadap kualitas air?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil untuk mengurangi dampak buruk terhadap kualitas air?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil guna mengurangi dampak buruk terhadap kualitas air?
F.04 Kebisingan dan Getaran
Kebisingan adalah sumber umum keprihatinan masyarakat terkait dengan pertambangan. Selama tahap operasional pertambangan, kebisingan bisa timbul 24 jam dalam sehari, tujuh hari dalam seminggu, dan pertambangan bisa beroperasi selama bertahun tahun. Sumber kebisingan dan getaran terkait pertambangan yang berpotensi besar meliputi helikopter yang digunakan selama eksplorasi, peralatan berat yang digunakan selama pembangunan tambang, pengeboran, peledakan, pemuatan dan pembuangan bongkahan batu, penyaringan dan peremukan, serta pengangkutan mineral (misalnya, lori untuk rel, jalan, dan sabuk konveyor).
Kebisingan bisa menimbulkan efek samping terhadap kesehatan manusia, meliputi penyakit terkait stres, gangguan tidur, tekanan darah tinggi, hilangnya pendengaran, dan kelainan wicara. Kebisingan juga bisa menimbulkan efek sosial dan perilaku, meliputi kejengkelan, yang merupakan indikator yang diterima luas dari gangguan kesehatan manusia yang berkaitan dengan kebisingan lingkungan. Tambahan lagi, getaran dari ledakan dan lalu lintas truk berat sering dirasakan oleh warga sekitar, dan dikaitkan, atau diduga sebagai penyebab, kerusakan struktural terhadap rumah-rumah yang berada di dekat lokasi tambang.
Satwa liar mungkin juga terdampak oleh kebisingan antropogenik. Pertambangan atau sumber kebisingan industri yang lain bisa menyebabkan peningkatan stres, gangguan perilaku alami, kerusakan pendengaran sementara atau permanen, perubahan keberhasilan perkembangbiakan, dan penghindaran habitat yang cocok. Dampak terhadap satwa liar dapat, pada gilirannya, menimbulkan implikasi bagi Masyarakat Adat atau masyarakat lokal yang sumber makanannya ikut terdampak.
Agar dapat menyelesaikan masalah kebisingan dan getaran, perusahaan tambang biasanya melibatkan penilaian kebisingan sebagai bagian dari penilaian dampak lingkungan dan sosial mereka, dan menjalankan studi kebisingan patokan untuk mendapatkan pemahaman tentang kondisi kebisingan pratambang di masyarakat dan area operasi proyek. Beberapa pemerintah nasional atau subnasional mungkin menerapkan peraturan kebisingan dan getaran. Namun tanpa keberadaan regulasi sekalipun, ada standar yang sudah diterima secara internasional yang dapat membantu perusahaan tambang mengukur tingkat kebisingan dan getaran yang dapat diterima di rumah, sekolah, atau “penerima” kebisingan lain di sekitar.
Ada bermacam-macam langkah mitigasi yang dapat ditempuh untuk meminimalkan efek kebisingan dan getaran terkait tambang terhadap masyarakat dan satwa liar, meliputi pembatasan sumber kebisingan yang sangat keras atau getaran kuat yang sudah dikenali, seperti ledakan, pada jam-jam kerja siang hari, serta peredaman atau pengontrolan kebisingan dan getaran hanya di sumber saja.
Masalah kebisingan dan getaran sebaiknya dibicarakan sejak awal pelibatan para pemangku kepentingan, dan di sepanjang siklus hidup pertambangan. Masyarakat kemungkinan lebih bisa menerima kebisingan dan getaran terkait tambang jika perusahaan bersikap transparan dan bekerja sama dengan mereka untuk mengembangkan strategi mitigasi yang dapat diterima. Jika keprihatinan masyarakat tidak dipertimbangkan atau diselesaikan secara memadai, permasalahan ini bisa memicu perlawanan masyarakat terhadap operasi tambang, dan menciptakan ketegangan besar terhadap hubungan masyarakat-perusahaan.
Meskipun membutuhkan investasi modal di awal, beberapa strategi mitigasi kebisingan dan getaran pada akhirnya dapat menghemat biaya bagi perusahaan dalam bentuk efisiensi yang meningkat dan kesehatan serta keselamatan kerja yang lebih baik. Manajemen kebisingan dan getaran yang efektif juga memberi keuntungan bagi industri yang lebih besar dengan memperbaiki sikap masyarakat terhadap aktivitas pertambangan.
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu membatasi dampak kebisingan dan getaran terhadap masyarakat, struktur bangunan, properti, dan satwa liar yang terdampak.
Di tingkat korporasi, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri sudah menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya:
a. Secara rutin menilai, berdasarkan data awal/angka dasar, tingkat kebisingan dan getaran yang ditimbulkan oleh aktivitas mereka?
b. Mengembangkan strategi dan rencana untuk membatasi dampak kebisingan dan getaran yang ditimbulkan oleh aktivitas mereka terhadap wilayah di sekitarnya?
c. Secara sistematis melibatkan masyarakat yang terdampak dan para pemangku kepentingan yang lain ke dalam pengembangan strategi tersebut?
F.05 Keanekaragaman Hayati dan Jasa Lingkungan
Keanekaragaman biologis – atau keanekaragaman hayati – mengacu pada keragaman tanaman, binatang, dan mikroorganisme yang hidup, gen yang dikandungnya, dan ekosistem yang menjadi habitat hidupnya. Ekosistem yang secara genetik beragam dan kaya-spesies lebih tahan dan mudah beradaptasi dengan tekanan dari luar, serta memiliki kemampuan yang lebih besar untuk pulih dari gangguan seperti banjir, kebakaran, dan penyakit. Keanekaragaman hayati memainkan peran penting dalam menstabilkan iklim bumi; berkontribusi bagi sumber mata pencaharian dan perekonomian yang berkelanjutan; dan menciptakan kondisi-kondisi yang memungkinkan tumbuh suburnya keragaman budaya.
Pemeliharaan keanekaragaman hayati global sangat relevan bagi masyarakat perdesaan di negara-negara berkembang dan bagi Masyarakat Adat, yang sumber mata pencaharian dan kelangsungan hidupnya sangat bergantung pada jasa lingkungan yang didukung melalui keanekaragaman hayati, seperti makanan, nutrisi, obat-obatan, bahan bakar, serat, kontrol makanan, air minum bersih, dan situs sakral.
Perusahaan tambang, seperti halnya bisnis lain dan masyarakat secara keseluruhan, mengandalkan ekosistem dan jasa yang diberikannya. Namun pertambangan juga berpotensi memengaruhi keanekaragaman hayati secara langsung, misalnya melalui penebangan pepohonan untuk jalan, penggundulan hutan primer dan lahan untuk mengakses tambang bijih, konversi lahan, lahan basah, atau perairan menjadi situs pembuangan limbah, dan pembuangan produk limbah ke lingkungan baik yang direncanakan maupun tidak direncanakan. Juga mungkin dijumpai dampak tidak langsung pertambangan terhadap keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan, seperti meningkatnya tekanan terhadap satwa liar untuk perdagangan atau dimakan ketika jalan-jalan tambang dibangun di wilayah yang sebelumnya tidak bisa diakses, atau gencarnya pembukaan lahan akibat migrasi masuk pekerja tambang atau pihak-pihak lain yang mencari peluang ekonomi.
Kesadaran yang meningkat akan dampak potensial langsung, tidak langsung, dipicu, dan kumulatif dari pertambangan terhadap keanekaragaman hayati dan akan ketergantungan perusahaan pada keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan mendorong banyak perusahaan tambang untuk melakukan penilaian keanekaragaman hayati dan mengembangkan sistem serta pendekatan untuk menghindari habitat penting dan wilayah keanekaragaman hayati utama bilamana memungkinkan.
Beberapa perusahaan tambang juga menerapkan “hierarki mitigasi” sebagai sarana untuk mengelola risiko keanekaragaman hayati. Hierarki mitigasi adalah sebuah kerangka kerja yang diakui secara internasional yang memprioritaskan penghindaran dampak terhadap keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan, dan, jika hal itu mustahil dilakukan, beralih ke minimalisasi, restorasi, dan, sebagai solusi terakhir, penggantian dampak residu. Meskipun mitigasi dampak adalah sebuah proses interaktif di sepanjang siklus hidup proyek, peluang terbesar untuk menghindari dampak ada di tahap perencanaan pengembangan.
Penggantian (offsetting) adalah opsi terakhir dalam hierarki karena membawa serentetan risiko, meliputi ketidakpastian keberhasilan, tantangan ekonomi dan tata kelola untuk mempertahankan pengganti secara terus-menerus tanpa henti, dan potensi proyek pengganti yang diusulkan tidak dapat diterima secara budaya oleh pemangku kepentingan yang bersangkutan. Ketika ditempuh, penggantian harus dirancang dengan cermat dan dipandu olehprinsip-prinsip seperti penggantian keanekaragaman hayati yang terdampak berdasarkan prinsip setara-secara-ekologis, sebanding, atau lebih baik; tidak boleh ada kerugian bersih dan lebih disukai perolehan bersih keanekaragaman hayati; konsultasi dengan para pemangku kepentingan untuk menentukan ganti yang dapat diterima; dan penciptaan mekanisme jangka panjang untuk membiayai proyek-proyek pengganti.
Seperti halnya semua sistem manajemen lingkungan yang bertanggung jawab, identifikasi risiko, pengembangan strategi mitigasi dan rencana pemantauan yang efektif meliputi keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan yang relevan. Tindakan juga dapat dirancang atau ditinjau oleh pakar biologi berpengalaman dan spesialis lain untuk memastikan pengoptimalan mitigasi sesuai dengan hierarki. Perusahaan semakin giat menugaskan audit atau pengawasan eksternal independen untuk memastikan apakah strategi manajemen keanekaragaman hayati mereka sudah diimplementasikan secara efektif. Pengawasan eksternal semacam itu merupakan sarana yang bermanfaat dalam membangun kepercayaan dan keyakinan diri pemangku kepentingan bahwa aktivitas pertambangan tidak menimbulkan ancaman besar terhadap keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan penting.
Dalil bisnis untuk manajemen keanekaragaman hayati yang bertanggung jawab tergolong kuat. Perusahaan yang menempuh pendekatan manajemen proaktif terhadap keanekaragaman dan jasa lingkungan akan meraih keunggulan kompetitif karena aturan regulasi di wilayah-wilayah dengan tekanan tinggi pada keanekaragaman hayati bergeser ke kebijakan yang lebih protektif. Perusahaan yang memperlihatkan praktik manajemen yang baik, termasuk penerapan hierarki mitigasi dan audit eksternal terhadap praktik manajemennya, akan mendapatkan akses yang lebih mudah dan lebih murah ke modal, tanah, dan sumber daya. Pendekatan yang kuat terhadap perlindungan keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan membantu membangun kepercayaan dari masyarakat, lembaga swadaya masyarakat, pemerintah negara produsen, dan para pemangku kepentingan yang lain, sehingga memperkuat izin sosial perusahaan untuk beroperasi.
Perusahaan berkomitmen untuk tidak melakukan eksplorasi atau menambang di Situs Warisan Dunia dan untuk menghormati kawasan lindung bumi dan maritim yang lain yang ditetapkan untuk melestarikan warisan budaya atau alam.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat perusahaan bahwa ia memiliki:
a. Meresmikan komitmen, yang didukung oleh manajemen senior, untuk tidak melakukan eksplorasi atau menambang di Situs Warisan Dunia dan untuk menghormati kawasan lindung bumi dan maritim yang lain yang ditetapkan untuk melestarikan warisan budaya atau alam?
b. Menetapkan tanggung jawab dan akuntabilitas ke manajemen senior atau direksi untuk menjalankan komitmen ini?
c. Mengalokasikan sumber daya keuangan dan pegawai untuk mengimplementasikan komitmen ini?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan melakukan tindakan untuk memperbaiki kinerjanya terkait manajemen keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang kinerjanya dalam manajemen keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil untuk mengelola keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil guna mengelola keanekaragaman hayati dan jasa lingkungan?
F.06 Perubahan Iklim dan Efisiensi Energi
Perubahan iklim adalah isu global, tetapi efeknya tidak tersebar rata di seluruh dunia atau di dalam negara-negara tertentu. Negara negara berkembang sering terdampak secara parah, dan Masyarakat Adat serta kelompok-kelompok miskin dan rawan di dalam masyarakat terlebih-lebih rawan terhadap dampak perubahan iklim.
Karena dunia mengalami peningkatan dampak yang berkaitan dengan perubahan iklim, seperti perubahan presipitasi (curah hujan), meningkatnya frekuensi peristiwa ekstrem, naiknya tingkat suhu dan permukaan air laut, perusahaan tambang dituntut oleh investor dan para pemangku kepentingan tambang untuk mengidentifikasi dan mengungkapkan risiko dan dampak terkait iklim.
Di sektor pertambangan mineral dan logam, sebagian besar emisi gas rumah kaca berkaitan langsung dengan konsumsi energi, yang emisinya utamanya diproduksi melalui pembakaran bahan bakar fosil untuk menghangatkan/menerangi bangunan dan mengoperasikan tambang serta peralatan pengolahan dan kendaraan. Pertambangan merupakan proyek yang padat energi, dan konsumsi energi masa depan diprediksi akan meningkat di sektor pertambangan karena deposit bijih tambang yang layak menjadi semakin dalam dan berkadar lebih rendah. Pertambangan batu bara menimbulkan emisi gas rumah kaca tambahan seperti pelepasan metana bebas atau karbon dioksida selama penambangan, dan emisi gas rumah kaca susulan yang ditimbulkan oleh pembakaran batu bara. Pertambangan juga dapat menimbulkan tambahan neto karbon ke atmosfer melalui hilangnya “kolam karbon” seperti hutan, yang juga menimbulkan dampak pada keanekaragaman hayati.
Banyak pihak di dalam industri pertambangan menyadari tantangan global yang berkaitan dengan emisi gas rumah kaca dan perubahan iklim. Perusahaan tambang juga semakin giat memantau dan melaporkan secara publik penggunaan energi dan emisi gas rumah kacanya, dan mengambil langkah-langkah untuk mengurangi penggunaan energi dan emisi dengan menggunakan energi terbarukan dan mengadopsi teknologi rendah emisi, serta meningkatkan efisiensi energi. Beberapa perusahaan juga mulai bekerja sama dengan masyarakat untuk menilai risiko dan mengembangkan strategi untuk merencanakan, memitigasi, dan beradaptasi dengan perubahan iklim.
Ada banyak manfaat potensial bagi perusahaan yang secara proaktif mengurangi konsumsi energi, emisi gas rumah kaca, dan ketergantungan bahan bakar fosil. Perusahaan yang mencurahkan diri sejak awal untuk mengambil langkah-langkah efisiensi energi dapat merasakan keunggulan kompetitif daripada perusahaan yang ketinggalan dalam hal tersebut, karena efisiensi yang lebihtinggi dapat membantu melindungi perusahaan dari biaya bahan bakar yang meningkat, meredam dampak regulasi yang dapat membatasi atau memberlakukan harga pada emisi karbon, sehingga menghasilkan kinerja pasar yang lebih baik.
Selain itu, pertambangan yang diusulkan di wilayah-wilayah yang rawan perubahan iklim semakin besar peluangnya menghadapi skeptisisme dari perusahaan asuransi dan investor. Hasilnya, perusahaan yang transparan dalam hal emisi gas rumah kaca, target penurunan emisi, dan strategi adaptasi iklimnya, dan yang dapat memperlihatkan rekam jejak positif perihal pengurangan emisi dan peningkatan efisiensi energi, lebih besar kemungkinannya dipandang kondusif oleh perusahaan asuransi, investor, dan masyarakat di wilayah-wilayah yang rawan, atau di tempat mana pun mereka hendak beroperasi. Perusahaan yang secara proaktif mengembangkan strategi untuk beradaptasi dengan perubahan iklim juga dapat berkontribusi bagi tujuan pembangunan yang berkelanjutan terkait penurunan angka kemiskinan dan tindakan iklim.
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk mengidentifikasi dan melaporkan potensi implikasi perubahan iklim dari dampak operasi tambangnya saat ini dan yang akan datang terhadap masyarakat, pekerja, dan lingkungan, serta untuk merancang dan mengimplementasikan strategi adaptasi dan transisi yang tepat.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa:
a. Menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu mengidentifikasi dan melaporkan potensi implikasi perubahan iklim dari dampak operasi tambangnya saat ini dan yang akan datang terhadap masyarakat, pekerja, dan lingkungan?
b. Menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu mengembangkan strategi dan rencana guna mengatasi implikasi tersebut?
c. Melacak implementasi strategi dan rencana tersebut secara sistematis?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan mengambil tindakan untuk meningkatkan kinerjanya dalam mengatasi emisi gas rumah kaca (GRK) yang ditimbulkan oleh aktivitas dan penggunaan energinya.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, berdasarkan target dan lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang kinerjanya dalam mengatasi emisi gas rumah kaca (GRK) yang ditimbulkan oleh aktivitas dan penggunaan energinya?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil untuk mengatasi emisi GRK yang ditimbulkan oleh aktivitas dan penggunaan energinya?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan terus menerus efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil guna mengatasi emisi GRK yang ditimbulkan oleh aktivitas dan penggunaan energinya agar dapat meminimalkannya?
Perusahaan melacak, meninjau, dan mengambil tindakan untuk meningkatkan kinerjanya dalam mengelola konsumsi energi di sepanjang operasinya.
Apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan sudah secara sistematis:
a. Melacak dan mengungkapkan data, berdasarkan target dan lintas kurun waktu yang berurutan, tentang kinerjanya dalam mengelola konsumsi energi di sepanjang operasinya?
b. Mengaudit dan/atau meninjau efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil untuk mengelola konsumsi energi di sepanjang operasinya?
c. Mengambil tindakan responsif, berdasarkan temuan audit dan/atau tinjauan tersebut, untuk mengupayakan peningkatan efektivitas langkah-langkah yang diambil guna mengelola konsumsi energi di sepanjang operasinya?
F.07 Manajemen Bahan-Bahan Berbahaya
Bahan-bahan berbahaya adalah bahan-bahan yang membawa risiko bagi kesehatan manusia, harta benda, atau lingkungan akibat karakteristik fisik atau kimiawinya. Ada banyak sekali bahan-bahan yang berpotensi berbahaya yang dihasilkan atau digunakan oleh operasi pertambangan.
Beberapa zat berbahaya, seperti air raksa, arsen, timbal, atau kadmium, menjadi semakin banyak tersedia akibat pertambangan. Misalnya, air raksa, yang berkaitan dengan deposit emas, perak, tembaga, atau seng, bisa terangkut selama pembakaran atau pengolahan, atau lepas atau lolos ke tanah, air, atau udara dari limbah tambang. Asam sulfat, zat kimia yang sering digunakan dalam pengolahan bijih tambang dan merupakan produk sampingan dari bijih tambang yang mengandung sulfida, bisa menyebabkan drainase asam dan lepasnya logam berat ke lingkungan.
Zat-zat kimia berbahaya lainnya digunakan untuk mengekstraksi logam dan mineral dari bijih tambang. Misalnya, sianida lazimnya digunakan untuk mengolah emas dan perak, dan bisa menjadi reagen pengolah kecil pada pertambangan logam basa. Sianida, jika lepas di tempat kerja atau lingkungan, bisa mematikan banyak organisme hidup. Asam nitrat, amonium nitrat, dan minyak bakar sering digunakan sebagai bahan peledak. Selain berpotensi menjadi pencemar lingkungan, zat-zat peledak tersebut bisa menimbulkan risiko keamanan bagi perusahaan, dan seyogianya dikelola dengan semestinya.
Semua bahan berbahaya membutuhkan manajemen risiko kesehatan kerja, lingkungan, dan sosial yang matang di sepanjang siklus hidup tambang - termasuk selama penambangan, pengangkutan, penyimpanan, penggunaan, produksi, dan pembuangan. Manajemen bahan-bahan berbahaya yang bertanggung jawab lazimnya memprioritaskan penghindaran, seperti dengan menggunakan zat-zat dan proses kimia yang lebih aman sebagai pengganti. Jika penghindaran mustahil dilakukan, praktik utama berupa minimalisasi penggunaan atau produksi bahan-bahan berbahaya, dan pencegahan serta kontrol pelepasan dan kecelakaan.
Tujuan ini bisa dicapai melalui penilaian bahaya secara terus menerus dan persiapan rencana manajemen risiko bahan-bahan berbahaya. Langkah-langkah selanjutnya meliputi implementasi tindakan seperti program pendidikan dan pelatihan bagi pekerja, kontraktor, dan masyarakat; inspeksi dan pemeliharaan peralatan dan fasilitas; pemantauan konsentrasi bahan-bahan berbahaya dalam limbah; dan pengembangan prosedur untuk mengatasi risiko residual yang tidak bisa dicegah atau dikontrol.
Jika tidak dikelola dengan semestinya, lepasnya zat-zat berbahaya di tempat kerja atau lingkungan bisa menimbulkan dampak negatif berat dan jangka panjang terhadap kualitas air, kesehatan ekosistem, pekerja, dan masyarakat lokal. Lepasnya zat-zat berbahaya juga dapat menimbulkan rentetan masalah keuangan dan reputasi bagi perusahaan atau pemerintah yang harus menanggung biaya pemulihan pencemaran dan memberikan ganti rugi bagi pekerja atau anggota masyarakat yang terdampak.
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu mengidentifikasi dan menilai risiko potensial yang berkaitan dengan pengangkutan, penanganan, penyimpanan, emisi, dan pembuangan bahan-bahan berbahaya, dan untuk merancang serta mengimplementasikan strategi dan rencana untuk mengatasi risiko yang sudah teridentifikasi.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa:
a. Menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu mengidentifikasi dan menilai risiko yang berkaitan dengan penggunaan bahan-bahan berbahaya?
b. Menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu mengembangkan strategi dan rencana guna mengatasi risiko ini?
c. Melacak implementasi strategi dan rencana tersebut secara sistematis?
F.08 Kesiapsiagaan Darurat
Pertambangan skala besar membawa risiko operasional yang besar. Pembuangan atau tumpahan zat-zat kimia berbahaya, kegagalan bendungan limbah tambang, ledakan, kebakaran, dan sekian banyak kecelakaan potensial lain menimbulkan risiko bagi pekerja tambang dan masyarakat di sekitar. Kecelakaan bisa terjadi karena kesalahan manusia, kegagalan peralatan, atau manajemen limbah tambang atau bahan-bahan berbahaya yang buruk. Kekuatan alam, seperti gempa bumi, banjir, tornado, atau kebakaran hutan juga bisa menyebabkan atau memperparah kondisi darurat di operasi tambang.
Kecelakaan atau insiden terkait tambang bisa menyebabkan dampak yang besar dan jangka panjang, meliputi kerusakan lingkungan, kerusakan harta benda, cedera, hilangnya nyawa, dan trauma psikologis. Kecelakaan/insiden tersebut juga bisa menyebabkan kerugian keuangan yang besar bagi masyarakat, pemerintah, dan perusahaan, dan rusaknya citra industri pertambangan secara keseluruhan.
Kendatipun upaya terbaik sudah dilakukan, kecelakaan dan kondisi darurat terkait tambang tidak pernah bisa dicegah sepenuhnya. Namun perusahaan tambang, bekerja sama dengan pemerintah lokal, pekerja, dan masyarakat, dapat mengembangkan dan mengimplementasikan kebijakan manajemen krisis dan kesiagaan gawat darurat, program pelatihan, dan prosedur untuk meminimalkan konsekuensi negatif dari gawat darurat tersebut.
Panduan telah dikembangkan untuk membantu perusahaan tambang mempersiapkan diri, pekerja, dan masyarakat lokal untuk menghadapi gawat darurat terkait tambang. Program Lingkungan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (UNEP) dan program lain telah menganjurkan agar perusahaan menempuh pendekatan kolaboratif terhadap perencanaan tanggap darurat yang melibatkan pihak berwenang lokal, para petugas tanggap darurat, dan anggota masyarakat dalam mengidentifikasi potensi kecelakaan terkait tambang; pengembangan strategi untuk mengurangi dan mengelola risiko yang teridentifikasi; dan penyusunan rencana tanggap darurat. Untuk meningkatkan efektivitas rencana tanggap darurat, perusahaan tambang dapat mengujinya bersama pihak pihak yang berpeluang terimbas dan mengomunikasikannya ke masyarakat secara umum agar para pelaku utama sudah siap sedia menanggapi beraneka ragam keadaan gawat darurat secara efektif.
Pendekatan tanggap darurat yang bersifat kolaboratif dapat membantu mengurangi ketakutan masyarakat terhadap dampak potensial terkait pertambangan, mengurangi risiko bagi masyarakat yang rentan yang sering terdampak paling parah dan paling lama oleh bencana dan gawat darurat, dan menumbuhkan kepercayaan dan keyakinan yang lebih besar antara operasi pertambangan dengan masyarakat. Jika terjadi kecelakaan terkait pertambangan, tanggap darurat yang terencana dengan baik dapat mengurangi korban jiwa, membatasi dampak terhadap harta benda dan lingkungan, dan meminimalkan kerugian keuangan bagi perusahaan.
Kesiapan keuangan merupakan komponen tambahan dari kesiapsiagaan darurat yang penuh tanggung jawab. Bagi perusahaan, praktik utamanya adalah mengantisipasi dan membekali diri untuk biaya pemulihan dari kecelakaan atau bencana alam, menjamin ketersediaan dana untuk mengimplementasikan tanggap darurat yang efektif, membayar ganti rugi atas kerusakan, cedera, atau hilangnya nyawa, dan perusahaan hendaknya membiayai pemulihan serta rekonstruksi secara tepat waktu dan efisien.
Perusahaan menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya mampu melibatkan otoritas lokal, pekerja, dan masyarakat ke dalam pengembangan, pengomunikasian, dan pengujian kesiapan kedaruratan dan rencana tanggap darurat.
Di tingkat korporasi, apakah perusahaan Anda dapat menunjukkan diri sudah menerapkan sistem untuk memastikan agar operasinya:
a. Mengembangkan dan mempertahankan kesiapan kedaruratan dan rencana tanggap darurat?
b. Melibatkan pemangku kepentingan lokal secara sistematis (misalnya, otoritas dan masyarakat lokal) ke dalam perancangan rencana tanggap darurat?
c. Secara sistematis melibatkan pemangku kepentingan lokal ke dalam pengujian rencana tanggap darurat ini?
Perusahaan secara publik mengungkapkan semua Informasi yang relevan tentang jaminan keuangan yang diberikan untuk manajemen dan pemulihan bencana, di sepanjang operasinya.
Dapatkah perusahaan Anda menunjukkan di tingkat korporat bahwa:
a. Secara publik mengungkapkan semua Informasi yang relevan tentang jaminan keuangan yang diberikan untuk manajemen dan pemulihan bencana?
b. Menyertakan ketentuan jaminan keuangan khusus ke dalam informasi yang diungkap ini yang dipilah berdasarkan lokasi tambang?
c. Memutakhirkan informasi ini setiap tahun?
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.
