The results of RMI 2018 show that companies across the mining industry are at various stages of maturity in their approach to economic, environmental, social and governance issues. This section highlights some of the transversal issues and contextual situations where performances are generally weakest and outlines how more systematic approaches to these areas of focus can benefit the mining industry and mining-affected societies alike.

Evidence of action

While some companies publicly provide useful and meaningful information on their policies and practices, many others disclose only a limited amount of information. As an evidence-based assessment, the RMI results reflect these differences since companies need to be able to demonstrate, rather than simply claim, that they have established responsible policies and practices. It is reasonable to assume that some companies are doing more than they have publicly reported: performances in the Index could likely be considerably higher if companies were more transparent about their management of EESG issues. Greater openness would also enable more learning and sharing of good practices.

Perspective on risk and impact

While stronger performing companies assess and address issues salient to the peoples, environments and economies of producing countries, many companies take a more conventional perspective, focusing largely on issues material only to their business. For example, most companies investing in research and development focus their R&D primarily on improving the productivity or costeffectiveness of their operations. Only a minority of companies pursue R&D aimed at better avoiding and mitigating the risks and adverse impacts of mining or creating opportunities for beneficial EESG outcomes. In line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies can show leadership by systematically considering risks and impacts through the inclusive lens of salience.^[1]

Effectiveness

Companies consistently show much less evidence of tracking their performance than of making commitments or taking action. Even on environmental matters, where performance tracking is more prevalent, there are still significant gaps. For example, one-third of companies show no evidence of tracking their performance on managing biodiversity. More systematic performance tracking of their management of EESG issues can help companies to better ‘know and show’ – i.e. understand how effective their actions are, and demonstrate this to other stakeholders. Performance tracking can also help companies better direct their efforts towards continuous improvement.

Economic development context

Less than one-third of companies demonstrate a commitment to take account of producing countries’ development plans, beyond the immediate vicinity of their mining operations. While a few companies show evidence of collaborating with governments, partners and other stakeholders to develop strategic approaches to regional or national development, these initiatives tend to be isolated actions rather than part of a company-wide approach. Concerted efforts to work with development partners in producing countries can help the mining industry to better contribute to broad-based economic development and support achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Contract disclosure and beneficial ownership

No companies (even when operating in EITI-compliant countries) demonstrate that they systematically disclose the contracts, licences and agreements granted to them by governments, and few disclose details of their beneficial ownership. Given the importance and potential of mining for many national economies, systematically disclosing mining contracts and the names of beneficial owners can help to improve the integrity of contracting, prevent corruption, and safeguard the inter-generational economic interests of society.

Human rights

While nearly all companies have stated their commitment to respect human rights, only half the companies have made a formal commitment that explicitly aligns to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Further, only 30% of companies show evidence of having put in place systems to assess human rights issues in order to avoid, minimise and mitigate adverse impacts. Even fewer companies publicly report on how they are managing their human rights impacts. As the mining sector is associated with frequent human rights abuses related to security management, it is important for mining companies to show that they are taking this issue seriously. Only seven companies show evidence of tracking or reviewing the effectiveness of their measures to address potential human rights abuses related to security management, in line with the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.

Human rights defenders

Only one company shows any evidence of making an explicit commitment to respect the rights of human rights defenders in its areas of operation. As public space for civil society shrinks in many parts of the world, it is critical for mining companies to explicitly demonstrate their respect for the rights of human rights defenders.

Grievance and remedy

With only a few exceptions, there is little evidence of companies tracking and reviewing the effectiveness of their grievance mechanisms for both communities and workers. The widespread lack of evidence of any performance tracking of grievance mechanisms implies that companies do not see the need to demonstrate that these mechanisms are working, and could even suggest that companies are not particularly interested in whether they are working or not. Publicly reporting on how worker and community grievances are addressed and how remedy is provided can help build stakeholder confidence in these mechanisms.

Living wage

Aside from a study at one mine site, none of the thirty companies shows evidence of tracking performance in meeting or exceeding living wage standards. Benchmarking wages to contextualised living wages, even in countries where living wage standards have not been set, can enable companies to demonstrate that they provide workers with the dignity and means to meet their basic needs and participate in society. For those companies that claim to pay above the living wage, there is no systematic evidence to prove that this has been tested.

Women

Very few companies show evidence of systematically ensuring their operations address gender issues. For example, only 20% of companies show any evidence of taking a systematic approach to ensuring women workers are protected from harassment and sexual exploitation. Within mining-affected communities too, systematic action by companies on gender is lacking. This includes, for example, taking measures to facilitate the participation of women in their community engagement activities or to involve women as well as men in local business development activities. None of the companies show any evidence of tracking their performance on managing the impacts of their activities on women. Reviewing and improving how they manage the impacts of mining on women in the workplace and within affected communities can enable companies to better address the serious risks and disadvantages faced by women.

Youth

Only a few companies show evidence of having made provisions to systematically involve mining-affected youth in their local business support and skills development initiatives. Similarly, only about 10% of companies show any evidence of systematically taking special efforts to include youth in their community engagement activities. Empowering and engaging youth can help companies tackle the often-overlooked needs and aspirations of youth, and better ensure the stability and future viability of mining-affected communities.

Children

No company shows evidence of specifically assessing the impacts of its activities on children. In addition, only about 35% of companies show any evidence of having systems to assess the risks of child labour and manage these risks where identified. Assessing and addressing the risks and impacts of mining activities on children can help companies to protect some of the most vulnerable stakeholders affected by mining.

Indigenous Peoples

While some companies make an explicit commitment to respect the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples, less than one-third of companies show that, where applicable, they systematically develop plans to respect the rights, interests, needs and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples. Going beyond consultation and systematically seeking the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples can help companies to effectively respect their rights and interests.

Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM)

While eight of the 30 companies claimed that ASM is not a relevant issue for them, only six assessed companies demonstrate they have systems to ensure their operations develop strategies to engage with ASM workers and communities, where ASM activities are taking place near mine sites. Still fewer companies have systems to ensure their operations provide technical assistance or support alternative livelihoods for ASM. Building systematic, constructive approaches to engaging with ASM can help companies support safer and more sustainable livelihoods for ASM workers and communities.

Post-closure viability

There is very little evidence of companies systematically addressing the post-closure viability of livelihoods for local communities and workers. Only one-third of companies have systems to ensure their operations develop post-closure transition plans for local communities, and the same proportion of companies have similar systems to develop transition plans for workers. Ongoing and collaborative planning with these affected stakeholders can help companies to ensure sustainable futures and positive legacies when their mining operations cease.

^[1]The term salience is used here in line with the logic of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It refers to the importance of an issue or impact determined not by the corporate business interest but based on the interests of society at large, including the full range of stakeholders (companies included).

Corrigenda