Company report
Summary Results
Banpu’s performance is strongest on Environmental Responsibility and Working Conditions. In Environmental Responsibility, the company’s best result relates to the systems it has put in place to assess and address risks related to its use of hazardous materials, while in Working Conditions, Banpu’s strongest performance relates to occupational health and safety, as it has made a formal commitment, and shows evidence of performance tracking, on this issue. In other areas, the company performs strongly on its formalised commitment to respect human rights. However, while this performance is due to its assignment of senior management responsibilities and its provision of resources to help operationalise this commitment, no evidence was found of the company systematically managing its human rights impacts.
Banpu’s overall results are limited by a relative lack of evidence on Economic Development, Lifecycle Management, and Community Wellbeing. For example, no evidence was found of Banpu having systems in place to develop procurement opportunities for producing country suppliers beyond those located in areas around its mine sites, or to support in-country capacity building for R&D related to EESG issues in mining. In addition, no evidence was found of the company having made a commitment to plan for mine closure from an early stage or systematically manage its impacts through all phases of a mining operation.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bharinto | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Indominco | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Jorong | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Kitadin-Embalut | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Trubaindo | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airly | Australia | 100 | Coal | Underground | |
| Bharinto | Indonesia | 64.49 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Clarence | Australia | 85 | Coal | Underground | |
| Gaohe | China | 45 | Coal | Underground | |
| Hebi | China | 40 | Coal | Underground | |
| Indominco | Mandiri | Indonesia | 65.13 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Jorong | Indonesia | 65.13 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Kitadin-Embalut | Indonesia | 65.13 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Mandalong | Australia | 100 | Coal | Underground | |
| Myuna | Australia | 100 | Coal | Underground | |
| Springvale | Australia | 50 | Coal | Underground | |
| Trubaindo | Indonesia | 65.13 | Coal | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angus Place | Australia | 50 | Coal | Underground | 2015 | |
| Charbon | Australia | 95 | Coal | Open-pit, Underground | 2015 | |
| Chiang Muan | Thailand | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | 2008 | |
| Ivanhoe | Australia | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | 2012 | |
| Kitadin-Tundung Mayang | Indonesia | 65.13 | Coal | Open-pit | 2015 | |
| Lamberts Gully | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit | 2010 | |
| Lampang | Thailand | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | 2008 | |
| Newstan | Australia | 100 | Coal | Underground | 2010 |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 30/03/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation Ltd. | 5.59 |
| TME Capital Company Ltd. | 2.56 |
| Vongkusolkit (Isara) | 2.3 |
| Social Security Office | 2.22 |
| Vongkusolkit (Kamol) | 1.83 |
| Krungsri Asset Management Co., Ltd. | 0.96 |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Company Ltd. (Thailand) | 0.8 |
| Vongkusolkit (Supawee) | 0.79 |
| Leelathanamongkol (Surachai) | 0.75 |
| Kasikorn Asset Management Co., Ltd. | 0.74 |
| Dimensional Fund Advisors, L.P. | 0.72 |
| Vongkusolkit (Lucksamee) | 0.69 |
| United Farmer and Industry Company Ltd. | 0.69 |
| Suthipongchai (Supachai) | 0.69 |
| Vongkusolkit (Vitoon) | 0.69 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| AACI SAADEC (BVI) Holdings Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| AFE Investments Pty Ltd. | Australia |
| Aizu Energy Pte. Ltd. | Singapore |
| Aizu Land Solar G.K. | Japan |
| Akira Energy Limited | Hong Kong |
| Akira Energy (South) Limited | Hong Kong |
| Anqiu Huineng New Energy Co., Ltd. | China |
| Asian American Coal, Inc. | British Virgin Islands |
| Aura Land Development Pte. Ltd. | Singapore |
| Banpu Australia Co. Pty Ltd. | Australia |
| Banpu Australia Resources Pty Ltd. | Australia |
| Banpu Coal Investment Company Limited | Mauritius |
| Banpu Coal Power Limited | Thailand |
| Banpu Coal Sales Co., Ltd. | Thailand |
| Banpu Energy Services Japan Co., Ltd. | Japan |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Australia | British Virgin Islands | Cayman Islands | China | Hong Kong | Indonesia |
| Japan | Lao PDR | Mauritius | Mongolia | Singapore | Thailand |
| USA |
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.