Company report
Summary Results
UC RUSAL achieves one of the ten strongest results for Economic Development, largely due to it demonstrating a systematic approach to enhancing the national skills base and employability of local populations around its mine sites.
In other areas, UC RUSAL’s best results generally relate to the formal commitments it has made, on business ethics, anti-bribery and corruption, occupational health and safety, and the systematic management of environmental impacts. UC RUSAL also shows evidence of systematic tracking and reviewing of its performance on occupational health and safety, and evidence of efforts to improve its performance on this issue.
However, UC RUSAL’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 managing post-closure transition for communities or workers, and no evidence was found of the company taking systematic action to address human rights issues.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ituni | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Kindia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Kurubuka-22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Windalco | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Achinsk Alumina | Kiya-Shaltyr, Mazoul | Russia | 100 | Alumina | Open-pit |
| Banichesky | Glukhovsky | Russia | 100 | Silicon | Open-pit |
| Bogatyr (UC RUSAL)* | Kazakhstan | 50 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Ituni | Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc. | Guyana | 90 | Bauxite | Open-pit |
| Kindia | Guinea | 100 | Bauxite | Open-pit | |
| Kurubuka-22 | Aroaima | Guyana | 90 | Bauxite | Open-pit |
| Kwakwani | Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc. | Guyana | 90 | Bauxite | Open-pit |
| North Urals | Severouralsk | Russia | 100 | Bauxite | Underground |
| Timan | Ukhta | Russia | 100 | Bauxite | Open-pit |
| Windalco | Kirkvine, Ewarton | Jamaica | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boksitogorsk | Russia | 100 | Bauxite | Open-pit | 1997 | |
| Friguia | Guinea | 100 | Bauxite | Open-pit | 2012 |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpart | Jamaica | Bauxite | Open-pit |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 09/02/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| En+ Group Ltd. | 48.13 |
| SUAL Partners Ltd. | 15.8 |
| Glencore International AG | 8.75 |
| Prokhorov (Mikhail Dmitrievitch) | 6.7 |
| Schroder Investment Management Ltd. (SIM) | 0.37 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 0.3 |
| Deripaska (Oleg) | 0.23 |
| JPMorgan Asset Management U.K. Limited | 0.21 |
| Candriam Belgium S.A. | 0.14 |
| SEB Varahaldus | 0.09 |
| JP Morgan Asset Management | 0.09 |
| HSBC Global Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited | 0.08 |
| Franklin Templeton Investment Management Ltd. | 0.07 |
| Pioneer Investment Management Ltd. | 0.05 |
| Wells Capital Management Inc. | 0.05 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| Aktivium B.V. | Netherlands |
| Alumina & Bauxite Company Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| Aughinish Alumina Ltd | Ireland |
| CJSC Kremniy | Russia |
| CJSC RUSAL ARMENAL | Armenia |
| Compagnie Des Bauxites De Kindia S.A. | Guinea |
| Eurallumina SpA | Italy |
| Friguia | Guinea |
| JSC Bauxite-Timana | Russia |
| JSC Komi Aluminii | Russia |
| JSC RUSAL Achinsk | Russia |
| JSC RUSAL Boxitogorsk Alumina | Russia |
| JSC RUSAL Krasnoyarsk | Russia |
| JSC RUSAL Novokuznetsk | Russia |
| JSC RUSAL SAYANAL | Russia |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Armenia | British Virgin Islands | Guinea | Ireland | Italy | Jamaica |
| Jersey | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Russia | Sweden | Switzerland |
| USA | Ukraine |
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.