Company report
Summary Results
Barrick Gold Corp is one of the three strongest performing companies for Community Wellbeing, due to its attention to human rights issues. The company has formally committed to respect human rights, reports on its management of human rights issues, and demonstrates that it has put in place systems to perform human rights due diligence. Barrick Gold Corp also shows evidence of reviewing and seeking to improve its performance on addressing any potential human rights abuses related to its security management.
Barrick Gold Corp achieves one of the five strongest results for Lifecycle Management and one of the ten strongest for Economic Development and Environmental Responsibility. Barrick Gold Corp’s highest performances in Lifecycle Management and Economic Development stem mainly from commitments it has made: the company shows some evidence of a commitment to adopt a lifecycle management approach, and to take account of national-level development plans when making its investment and business decisions. In Environmental Responsibility, the company’s best result relates to its systematic tracking of its performance on managing its energy consumption and its demonstrated efforts to improve the effectiveness of its measures to address this issue.
However, Barrick Gold Corp’s results show some inconsistencies. For example, the company shows a marked difference in the efforts it makes to track the performance of its grievance mechanisms. While the company shows evidence of systematically tracking and reviewing the performance of its grievance mechanisms for communities, no such evidence is found relating to the performance of its grievance mechanisms for workers. The company’s overall results are also limited in part by a lack of evidence of any systematic tracking of its performance on preventing bribery and corruption, despite the fact that the company has formally committed to prevent bribery and corruption.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulyanhulu | 2 | 2 | 1.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.08 |
| Lagunas Norte | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1.33 |
| Lumwana | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1.33 |
| North Mara | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.17 |
| Pueblo Viejo | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1.67 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulyanhulu | Reef Zero, Reef One, Reef Two | Tanzania | 63.9 | Gold, Copper | Underground, Tailings Leach |
| Buzwagi | Tanzania | 63.9 | Gold, Copper | Open-pit | |
| Cortez | Pipeline, Cortez Hills, Nevada | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Golden Sunlight | Bull Mountain | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit |
| Goldstrike | Betze‐Post, Meikle, Rodeo, Nevada | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Hemlo | Williams | Canada | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Jabal Sayid | Saudi Arabia | 50 | Copper, Gold, Silver | Underground | |
| Kalgoorlie (Barrick Gold Corp)* | Super Pit, Mt Charlotte | Australia | 50 | Gold | Open-pit |
| Lagunas Norte | Peru | 100 | Silver, Gold | Open-pit | |
| Lumwana | Zambia | 100 | Copper | Open-pit | |
| North Mara | Nyabirama, Gokona | Tanzania | 63.9 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Porgera (Barrick Gold Corp)* | Papua New Guinea | 47.5 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Pueblo Viejo | Dominican Republic | 60 | Silver, Gold | Open-pit | |
| South Arturo | Dee, Storm | USA | 40 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture (Barrick Gold Corp) | Getchell | USA | 75 | Gold | Underground |
| Veladero | Argentina | 100 | Gold, Silver | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Bell | Canada | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | 2010 | |
| El Indio | Chile | 83 | Gold, Silver, Copper | Open-pit | 2002 | |
| Eskay Creek | Canada | 100 | Gold, Silver | Underground | 2008 | |
| Golden Giant | Canada | 100 | Gold | Underground | 2014 | |
| Homestake | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | 2001 | |
| McLaughlin | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | 2002 | |
| Pierina | Peru | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | 2014 | |
| Tambo | Chile | 83 | Gold | Open-pit | 1999 |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 30/03/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| Van Eck Associates Corporation | 3.85 |
| First Eagle Investment Management, L.L.C. | 3.01 |
| Flossbach von Storch AG | 2.61 |
| Templeton Investment Counsel, L.L.C. | 2.54 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 2.48 |
| Connor, Clark & Lunn Investment Management Ltd. | 1.39 |
| Majedie Asset Management Limited | 1.37 |
| Adage Capital Management, L.P. | 1.21 |
| CIBC World Markets Inc. | 1.16 |
| Capital World Investors | 1.15 |
| BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. | 0.9 |
| APG Asset Management | 0.88 |
| RBC Capital Markets Wealth Management | 0.88 |
| Boston Partners | 0.87 |
| TD Asset Management Inc. | 0.85 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| 1051694 Ontario Inc. | Canada |
| 1816962 Ontario Inc. | Canada |
| AC 40689 Ltd. | Cayman Islands |
| Acacia Mining plc | UK |
| Argentina Gold (bermuda) II Ltd. | Cayman Islands |
| Argentina Gold (Bermuda) I Ltd. | Cayman Islands |
| Argentina Gold Corp | Canada |
| Arizona Star Resource (Bermuda) Ltd. | Cayman Islands |
| Atacama Copper Pty Limited | Australia |
| Aurum Insurance Company Inc. | Barbados |
| A&X Financeco Inc. | USA |
| Barrick Administration Company Pty Ltd | Australia |
| Barrick African Copper Pty Limited | Australia |
| Barrick (Australia Pacific Holdings) Pty Ltd | Australia |
| Barrick (Australia Pacific) Pty Limited | Australia |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Argentina | Australia | Barbados | Bermuda | Canada | Cayman Islands |
| Chile | Dominican Republic | Pakistan | Papua New Guinea | Peru | Saudi Arabia |
| Tanzania | UK | USA | Zambia |
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.