Company report
Summary Results
Rio Tinto achieves one of the ten strongest results for four different areas: Economic Development, Business Conduct, Working Conditions and Environmental Responsibility. In Economic Development, Rio Tinto shows some evidence of a systematic approach to enhancing the national skills base and employability of local populations around its mine sites. In Business Conduct, Rio Tinto’s performance reflects its formal commitments on anti-bribery and corruption and the transparency of mineral revenues (while the company has also made a formal commitment on business ethics, there is less evidence that it has taken measures to implement this commitment). Rio Tinto also shows some evidence of disclosing the payments it makes to sub-national and national governments, including some site-level information on these payments.
In Working Conditions, Rio Tinto shows evidence of having operationalised its commitment to provide safe and healthy working conditions and tracked its performance on this issue. In Environmental Responsibility, Rio Tinto’s best result relates to its commitment to manage its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach, and its assignment of responsibility and resources to implement this commitment.
Overall though, Rio Tinto’s results are limited by a lack of evidence of systematic attention to Community Wellbeing issues. For example, no evidence was found of the company systematically reporting on its management of human rights, issues, tracking the quality of its relationships with affected communities, or tracking its performance on addressing potential human rights abuses related to its security management.
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)
Indicator-by-indicator results
Economic Development
A.01 National and Regional Socio-Economic Development Planning
A.02 Procurement
A.03 Capacity Building
A.04 Enhancing the National Skills Base
Selected Mine sites results
Mine sites individually assessed but not included
in the overall company score
| Mine Site Name | Local 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oyu Tolgoi | 5 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5.17 |
| QIT Madagascar Minerals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Richards Bay Minerals | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3.17 |
| Rössing | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1.67 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argyle | Australia | 100 | Diamond Carats | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Boron | USA | 100 | Borates | ||
| Coal & Allied | Australia | 100 | Coal | ||
| Dampier Salt operations | Dampier, Port Hedland, Lake MacLeod | Australia | 68 | Salt | |
| Diavik | Canada | 60 | Diamond Carats | Underground | |
| Energy Resources of Australia | Ranger, Jabiluka | Australia | 68.4 | Uranium Oxide | |
| Escondida (Rio Tinto)* | Chile | 30 | Copper, Gold, Silver | Open-pit | |
| Gove | Australia | 100 | Bauxite | Open-pit | |
| Hail Creek | Australia | 82 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Hamersley iron mines | Broackman, Broackman no. 4, Channar, Eastern Range, Marandoo, Mount Tom Price, Nammuldi, Paraburdoo, Western Turner Syncline, Yandicoogina | Australia | 100 | Iron Ore | |
| Hope Downs mines | Hope Downs 1, Hope Downs 4 | Australia | 50 | Iron Ore | |
| Hunter Valley | Australia | 67.6 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| IOC mine | Carol Lake | Canada | 58.7 | Iron Ore | |
| Kennecott | USA | 100 | Copper, Gold, Molybdenum | ||
| Kestrel | Australia | 80 | Coal | Underground | |
| Mount Thorley | Australia | 80 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Oyu Tolgoi | Mongolia | 33.5 | Copper, Gold, Silver | Open-pit | |
| QIT Madagascar Minerals | Madagascar | 80 | Titanium | Open-pit | |
| Richards Bay Minerals | South Africa | 74 | Titanium, Iron Ore, Zirconium | Open-pit | |
| Rio Tinto Fer et Titane (RTFT) | Canada | 100 | Titanium, Iron Ore, Zirconium | ||
| Robe River mines | Mesa J, Mesa A, West Angelas | Australia | 53 | Iron Ore | |
| Rössing | Namibia | 68.6 | Uranium Oxide | Open-pit | |
| Warkworth | Australia | 55.57 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Weipa | Australia | 100 | Bauxite | Open-pit |
Closed mine sites (controlled assets under care & maintenance, closure or post-closure management)
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types | Year of closure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flambeau | USA | 100 | Copper | Open-pit | 1997 | |
| Kelian | Indonesia | 90 | Gold | Open-pit | 2006 | |
| Ridgeway | USA | 100 | Gold, Silver | Open-pit | 1999 |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bengalla | Australia | Coal | ||
| Mount Pleasant | Australia | Coal | ||
| Murowa | Zimbabwe | Diamond Carats | Underground | |
| Zululand Anthracite Colliery | South Africa | Coal |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 09/02/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| Aluminum Corp of China Ltd | 13.64 |
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 9.54 |
| Capital World Investors | 2.76 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 2.35 |
| Legal & General Investment Management Ltd. | 2.11 |
| Aberdeen Asset Investments Limited | 1.51 |
| Capital Research Global Investors | 1.45 |
| JPMorgan Asset Management U.K. Limited | 1.25 |
| M & G Investment Management Ltd. | 1.19 |
| State Street Global Advisors (UK) Ltd. | 1.08 |
| Standard Life Investments Ltd. | 1.05 |
| SAFE Investment Company Limited | 1.02 |
| Aviva Investors Global Services Limited | 1 |
| BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. | 0.97 |
| UBS Asset Management (Switzerland) | 0.92 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2017 | Country |
|---|---|
| 10029734 Canada Inc. | Canada |
| 1043802 Ontario Ltd | Canada |
| 1109723 B.C. Ltd. | Canada |
| 201 Logistics Center, LLC | USA |
| 46106 YUKON INC. | Canada |
| 46117 YUKON INC. | Canada |
| 535630 YUKON INC.; | Canada |
| 7999674 CANADA INC. | Canada |
| 9230556 CANADA INC. | Canada |
| 9539549 CANADA INC. | Canada |
| AGM Holding Company Pte Ltd | Singapore |
| Alcan Alumina Ltda. | Brazil |
| Alcan Asia Limited | Hong Kong |
| Alcan Betriebs- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH | Germany |
| Alcan Chemicals Limited | UK |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Aruba | Australia | Belgium | Bermuda | Brazil | British Virgin Islands |
| Canada | Chile | China | Cyprus | Finland | France |
| Gabon | Germany | Guinea | Hong Kong | Iceland | India |
| Indonesia | Italy | Japan | Jersey | Kazakhstan | Lao PDR |
| Luxembourg | Madagascar | Malaysia | Malta | Mauritius | Mexico |
| Mongolia | Morocco | Mozambique | Namibia | Netherlands | New Zealand |
| Oman | Panama | Papua New Guinea | Peru | Philippines | Russia |
| Serbia | Singapore | South Africa | South Korea | Spain | Sweden |
| Switzerland | Turkey | UAE | UK | USA | Venezuela |
| Zambia |
Recent involvements in Investor/State investment disputes (since 2014)
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.