Company report
Summary Results
MMG’s strongest performances relate to Business Conduct and Working Conditions. In Business Conduct, MMG’s performance stems largely from its attention to business ethics and the transparency of mineral revenues. The company has made a formal commitment to an integrated, cross-departmental approach to business ethics, and shows that it has assigned senior management responsibilities and accountabilities for the implementation of this commitment. MMG has also demonstrated its commitment to engage in multi-stakeholder forums to improve the transparency of disclosure on mineral revenues. In Working Conditions, MMG shows evidence of a formal commitment to address occupational health and safety, as well as systematic tracking and reviewing of its performance and efforts to improve its performance on this issue.
However, MMG’s overall results are limited by a relative lack of evidence on Lifecycle Management and Community Wellbeing. For example, no evidence was found of the company having systems for applying socio-economic and environmental criteria during investment decision-making or for integrating environmental and social issues into its decision-making on mergers and acquisitions. Likewise, in Community Wellbeing, there was a lack of evidence of the company having a systematic approach to addressing human rights. No evidence was found of the company having made a formal commitment to respect human rights, nor of it publicly reporting on its management of human rights issues, despite some evidence of human rights due diligence assessments having been carried out.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinsevere | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.83 |
| Las Bambas | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3.00 |
| Sepon | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.83 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinsevere | DRC | 100 | Copper | Open-pit | |
| Las Bambas | Peru | 62.5 | Copper | Open-pit | |
| Rosebery | Australia | 100 | Zinc, Copper, Lead, Gold | Underground | |
| Sepon | Lao PDR | 90 | Copper | Open-pit |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 31/03/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| China Minmetals Non-Ferrous Metals Co., Ltd. | 72.6 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 0.63 |
| Dimensional Fund Advisors, L.P. | 0.49 |
| BlackRock Asset Management North Asia Limited | 0.48 |
| Candriam Belgium S.A. | 0.38 |
| Harvest Global Investments Limited | 0.31 |
| Matthews International Capital Management, L.L.C. | 0.29 |
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 0.28 |
| Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) | 0.2 |
| BNY Mellon Asset Management North America Corporation | 0.2 |
| JPMorgan Asset Management (Japan) Limited | 0.18 |
| HSBC Global Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited | 0.18 |
| First Trust Advisors L.P. | 0.18 |
| J.P. Morgan Asset Management (Hong Kong) Ltd. | 0.15 |
| China Southern Asset Management Co. Ltd. | 0.12 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| Album Investment Pte Ltd | Singapore |
| Album Resources Pte Ltd | Singapore |
| Allegiance Mining Pty Ltd | Australia |
| Anvil Mining Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| Lane Xang Minerals Limited | Lao PDR |
| Minera Las Bambas S.A. | Peru |
| MMG Australia Limited | Australia |
| MMG Century Limited | Australia |
| MMG Dugald River Pty Ltd | Australia |
| MMG Exploration Holdings Limited | Hong Kong |
| MMG Exploration Pty Ltd | Australia |
| MMG Finance Limited | Hong Kong |
| MMG Golden Grove Pty Ltd | Australia |
| MMG Kinsevere SARL | DRC |
| MMG Management Pty Ltd | Australia |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Australia | British Virgin Islands | Canada | DRC | Hong Kong | Lao PDR |
| Netherlands | Peru | Singapore | Switzerland |
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.