NYSE: NEM
Headquarters:
USA
Sector:
Precious Metals
Government Ownership:
No State Ownership
Pre-tax Revenues (in BUSD):
6.711 (31/12/2016)
Number of employees:
12,400 (31/12/2016)
Number of workers
(employees + contract workers):
23,200 (31/12/2016)
Company-reported mining worker fatalities:
  • 2015 |
    Employees: 0Contractors: 2
  • 2016 |
    Workers: 0
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

Newmont Mining is the highest performing company for two areas: Business Conduct and Environmental Responsibility. In Business Conduct, Newmont Mining’s performance stems largely from its formal commitments on business ethics, anti-bribery and corruption, and transparency of mineral revenues. In Environmental Responsibility, Newmont Mining’s performance reflects its attention to a number of different issues. For example, the company shows evidence of assessing and addressing the potential implications of climate change for its operations and its impacts on communities, workers and the environment. The company also systematically tracks and reviews its performance on biodiversity management.

Newmont Mining achieves one of the three strongest results for Economic Development and Community Wellbeing. In Economic Development, the company’s best performances relate to its systematic approach to developing procurement opportunities for producing country suppliers at the national level (as well as at the local level). In Community Wellbeing, the company demonstrates systematic action on a number of topics including human rights, and stakeholder engagement including with ASM communities. Finally, Newmont Mining is one of the five strongest performers for Lifecycle Management and one of the ten strongest for Working Conditions.

On the other hand, Newmont Mining’s overall results are limited by a lack of evidence on a number of specific issues across a range of areas. For example, no evidence was found of the company having systems in place to apply socio-economic and environmental criteria during investment decision-making processes, or to address the specific health and safety needs of women workers.

Economic Development

0.500 / 1.000

Business Conduct

0.693 / 1.000

Lifecycle Management

0.549 / 1.000

Community Wellbeing

0.695 / 1.000

Working Conditions

0.578 / 1.000

Environmental Responsibility

0.725 / 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)
Ahafo2542012.33
Akyem2542012.33
Merian1242001.50
Yanacocha6542213.33

List of all mine sites

Mine Site NameAliasesCountryCompany's share (%)ProductsMining types
AhafoGhana100GoldOpen-pit
AkyemGhana100GoldOpen-pit
BoddingtonAustralia100Gold, CopperOpen-pit
Carlin TrendEmigrant, Gold Quarry, Silverstar, Goldstar, Leeville, Chukar, Pete Bajo, Exodus, Capstone, Bootstrap, Genesis, Maggie Creek, TuscUSA100GoldOpen-pit, Underground
Cripple Creek & VictorUSA100GoldOpen-pit
Kalgoorlie (Newmont Mining)*Super Pit, Mt CharlotteAustralia50GoldOpen-pit
Long CanyonUSA100GoldOpen-pit
MerianSuriname75GoldOpen-pit
PhoenixLone TreeUSA100Gold, CopperOpen-pit
TanamiAustralia100GoldUnderground
Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture (Newmont Mining)*USA25GoldUnderground
Twin CreeksUSA100GoldOpen-pit
YanacochaSan José, La Quinua, Cerro Yanacocha, Carachugo, Maqui-MaquiPeru51.35Gold, SilverOpen-pit
*Joint-Venture not under direct control of the company and not included in RMI assessment

Closed mine sites (controlled assets under care & maintenance, closure or post-closure management)

Mine Site NameAliasesCountryCompany's share (%)ProductsMining typesYear of closure
Con GoldCanada100GoldUnderground2003
GiantCanada100GoldUnderground2004
Kinsley MountainUSA78GoldOpen-pit1999
MeselMinahasa, Leon, NibongIndonesia80GoldOpen-pit2004
MidniteUSA51Uranium OxideOpen-pit1981
Mule CanyonUSA100GoldOpen-pit1999
RosebudUSA50Gold, SilverUnderground2000
San LuisBattle MountainUSA100GoldOpen-pit1994
WoodcuttersAustralia100Lead, ZincOpen-pit, Underground1999

Assets sold during the assessment period

Mine Site NameAliasesCountryProductsMining types
Batu-HijauIndonesiaCopper, GoldOpen-pit
WaihiMartha HillNew ZealandGold, SilverOpen-pit

Main Shareholders

As of: 09/02/2018Shares (%)
The Vanguard Group, Inc.10.28
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.6.54
Van Eck Associates Corporation4.99
State Street Global Advisors (US)4.91
BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd.4.36
Carmignac Gestion2.88
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.2.49
Flossbach & von Storch AG1.59
Northern Trust Investments, Inc.1.18
The Boston Company Asset Management, LLC1.16
Fidelity Management & Research Company1.16
Geode Capital Management, L.L.C.1.12
M & G Investment Management Ltd.0.99
APG Asset Management0.95
Schweizerische Nationalbank0.89

Known Subsidiaries

As of: 31/01/2018Country
Battle Mountain Resources Inc.USA
Con Exploration Ltd. Canada
Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company LLC USA
Dawn Mining Company LLC USA
Elko Land and Livestock CompanyUSA
ELLC Grazing Membership LLC USA
EMH (BVI) IncBritish Virgin Islands
Empresa Minera Maria SRL Bolivia
Euronimba Liberia Limited Liberia
Euronimba LimitedJersey
Euronimba UK LimitedUK
Fronteer Development LLC USA
Fronteer Development (USA) LLCUSA
Fronteer Royalty LLC USA
GCGC LLC USA

Known Tax Jurisdictions

ArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaBermudaBoliviaBritish Virgin Islands
CanadaChileFranceGhanaGuineaGuyana
HaitiHondurasIndonesiaJerseyLiberiaMalaysia
MexicoNetherlandsPapua New GuineaPeruSolomon IslandsSuriname
UKUSA

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

Case DateCase numberCase descriptionStatus
2014ARB/14/15Nusa Tenggara Partnership B.V. and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara vs. Republic of Indonesia (Copper and gold mining project)Concluded

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.