LSE: ANTO
Headquarters:
UK
Sector:
Base metals
Government Ownership:
No State Ownership
Pre-tax Revenues (in BUSD):
3.6217 (2016)
Number of employees:
5,500 (2016)
Number of workers
(employees + contract workers):
18,600 (2016)
Company-reported mining worker fatalities:
  • 2015 |
    Employees: 0Contractors: 1
  • 2016 |
    Workers: 1
Home countries, where the company is headquartered
Producing countries, where the company has mining operations
Mine sites selected for mine-site-level assessment

Summary Results

Antofagasta is one of the five strongest performing companies for Business Conduct, largely due to its formal commitments on business ethics, anti-corruption and bribery, and transparency of mineral revenue payments. The company’s performance in this area also stems from its full disclosure of site-level payments to sub-national and national governments.

Antofagasta achieves one of the ten strongest results for Economic Development, Lifecycle Management and Environmental Responsibility. In Economic Development, the company’s best result relates to the partnerships it has developed for undertaking research and development on EESG issues related to mining. In Lifecycle Management, Antofagasta performance stems from its company-wide system to plan for land rehabilitation and post-mining land-use opportunities. In Environmental Responsibility, the company’s best results relate to its commitment to systematically avoid, minimise and mitigate its environmental impacts, and its efforts to track its performance in managing its greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption.

Conversely, Antofagasta’s overall results are limited by a relative lack of evidence of policies and systems to address Community Wellbeing, including human rights issues. For example, while the company has made a commitment to respect human rights, it shows little or no evidence of systematic human rights due diligence, or of reporting on its performance in managing human rights issues. Antofagasta also shows little evidence of tracking its performance on social issues such as the quality of its community relationships or its efforts to manage its impacts on women.

Economic Development

0.223 / 1.000

Business Conduct

0.648 / 1.000

Lifecycle Management

0.295 / 1.000

Community Wellbeing

0.076 / 1.000

Working Conditions

0.553 / 1.000

Environmental Responsibility

0.469 / 1.000

The maximum value of 1.000 represents the aggregation of best scores achieved for all indicators in a given thematic area, taking into account all companies’ results. As the aggregate best score varies from one area to another, these charts cannot be used to compare company performances across different areas.

All company results are based on public domain data that have been sourced by RMI analysts or provided by companies. In the case of a few companies, very little information was available. It is important to note that a low score may only reflect a lack of relevant information in the company’s publicly available documentation.

Relative company performance

Commitment (11 indicators)

Action (41 indicators)

Effectiveness (21 indicators)

1.000 = aggregation of best scores for all indicators of this measurement area.

Indicator-by-indicator results

Economic Development

Selected Mine sites results

Mine sites individually assessed but not included
in the overall company score

Mine Site NameLocal Procurement (score /6.00)Local Employment (score /6.00)Community grievance mechanism (score /6.00)Workers grievance mechanism (score /6.00)Water quality and quantity (score /6.00)Biodiversity management (score /6.00)Mine site (score /6.00)
Antucoya0200100.50
Centinela0200100.50
Los Pelambres0500462.50
Zaldívar0200000.33

List of all mine sites

Mine Site NameAliasesCountryCompany's share (%)ProductsMining types
AntucoyaChile70CopperOpen-pit
CentinelaEsperanza, El TesoroChile70Copper, Gold, SilverOpen-pit
Los PelambresChile60Copper, Molybdenum, GoldOpen-pit
ZaldívarChile50CopperOpen-pit

Assets sold during the assessment period

Mine Site NameAliasesCountryProductsMining types
MichillaChileCopperOpen-pit, Underground

Main Shareholders

As of: 30/03/2018Shares (%)
E. Abaroa Foundation60.66
Luksic (Jean-Paul)4.26
First State Investments (Singapore)3
RBC Global Asset Management (UK) Limited2.16
Tweedy, Browne Company LLC2.04
International Value Advisers, LLC1.97
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.1.1
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.0.91
The Vanguard Group, Inc.0.91
Schroder Investment Management Ltd. (SIM)0.83
T. Rowe Price International (UK) Ltd.0.8
Stewart Investors0.77
Legal & General Investment Management Ltd.0.7
G H Kluge & Sons Ltd0.54
Pzena Investment Management, LLC0.48

Known Subsidiaries

As of: 31/12/2016Country
Alfa Estates LimitedJersey
Alto Maipo SpAChile
Anaconda South America IncUSA
Andes Investments Company (Jersey) LimitedJersey
Andes Re LimitedBermuda
Andes Trust Limited (The)UK
Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Company LimitedUK
Antofagasta Copper LimitedUK
Antofagasta Energy Jersey PCCJersey
Antofagasta Gold LimitedUK
Antofagasta Holdings LimitedUK
Antofagasta Investment Company LimitedJersey
Antofagasta Metals LimitedUK
Antofagasta Minerals Adelaide Pty LimitedAustralia
Antofagasta Minerals Australia Pty LimitedAustralia

Known Tax Jurisdictions

AustraliaBermudaBoliviaBritish Virgin IslandsCanadaChile
JerseyPakistanPeruUKUSA

Recent involvements in Investor/State investment disputes (since 2014)

No case

Disclaimer

The findings, conclusions and interpretations within this 2018 Responsible Mining Index (RMI) report do not necessarily represent the views of funders, trustees, and employees of the Responsible Mining Foundation, and others who participated in consultations and as advisors to the report.

This report is intended to be for information purposes only and is not intended as promotional material in any respect. The report is not intended to provide accounting, legal, tax or investment advice or recommendations, neither is it intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. In order to fully understand the methodology of the 2018 Responsible Mining Index, the respective sections on the website should be consulted.

The RMI seeks evidence of companies’ policies and practices on economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) issues, but does not seek to measure the actual outcomes achieved on EESG issues. Results are based only on evidence sourced from the public domain or provided by companies as open data. Whilst this information is believed to be reliable, no guarantee can be given that it is accurate or complete, nor does it preclude the possibility that policies and practices may exist, but which the RMI has not been able to consider for purposes of assessment. In this respect, the results of the low-scoring companies do not necessarily reflect a lack of relevant policies and practices; as they may be due to a lack of public reporting by the companies, limitations in accessing information, and/or any difficulties in accessing the RMI company portal.

It should be noted that, prior to publication, all companies in the Index were invited to check the factual accuracy of the contextual data and evidence upon which the Index is based and to review company information in the RMI document library.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of translations, the English language version should be taken as the definitive version. The RMI reserves the right to publish corrigenda on its web page, and readers of the 2018 RMI report should consult the web page for corrections or clarifications https://www.responsibleminingindex.org.