Company report
Summary Results
AngloGold Ashanti is the highest performing company on Working Conditions, one of the three strongest performers for Lifecycle Management, one of the five strongest for Community Wellbeing and Environmental Responsibility, and one of the ten strongest for Business Conduct. In Working Conditions, AngloGold Ashanti’s best results relate to its commitment to provide safe and healthy workplaces and its tracking of its performance on this issue, as well as its company-wide systems to carry out regular due diligence on the risk of using forced labour or child labour in its operations or supply chain.
In Lifecycle Management, the company’s best result relates to the systematic and participatory manner in which it plans for land rehabilitation and post-mining land-use. In Community Wellbeing, the company shows evidence of having systems to ensure its operations engage with local communities and artisanal and small-scale miners, respect Indigenous Peoples, and avoid, minimise and mitigate the impacts of physical or economic displacement. In Environmental Responsibility, the company has some of its best performances in tracking and improving its effectiveness; it demonstrates systematic tracking of its performance on managing its tailings-related risks, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption.
On the other hand, AngloGold Ashanti’s overall results are limited by a lack of evidence on Economic Development. For example, no evidence was found of the company developing procurement opportunities for producing country suppliers beyond those located locally to its mine sites. In addition, AngloGold Ashanti’s performance on human rights-related indicators is somewhat mixed. While the company has made a formal commitment to respect human rights and shows evidence of addressing the specific human rights risks related to its security management, no evidence was found of the company reporting on its overall management of 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cuiabá Complex | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.33 |
| Geita | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.83 |
| Iduapriem | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.83 |
| Sadiola | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.83 |
| TauTona | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerro Vanguardia | Argentina | 92.5 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Cuiabá Complex | Cuiabá, Lamego | Brazil | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Córrego do Sítio | CdS I, São Bento, CdS II, Carvoaria, Laranjeiras, Cachorro Bravo, Rosalino | Brazil | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Geita | Tanzania | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Iduapriem | Ghana | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Kopanang | South Africa | 100 | Gold | Underground | |
| Mine Waste Solutions | Chemwes, First Uranium SA | South Africa | 100 | Uranium Oxide | Open-pit |
| Moab Khotsong | South Africa | 100 | Gold | Underground | |
| Mponeng | South Africa | 100 | Gold | Underground | |
| Sadiola | Mali | 41 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Serra Grande | Mina III, Mina Nova, Pequizão | Brazil | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Siguiri | Guinea | 85 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Sunrise Dam | Australia | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Surface Operations | South Africa | 100 | Gold | Tailings Leach | |
| TauTona | South Africa | 100 | Gold | Underground | |
| Tropicana | Australia | 70 | Gold | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nova Lima Sul | Raposos, Morro da Glória | Brazil | 100 | Gold | Underground | 2000 |
| Obuasi | Ghana | 100 | Gold | Open-pit | 2016 | |
| Yatela | Mali | 40 | Gold | Open-pit | 2013 |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cresson | Cripple Creek & Victor | USA | Gold | Open-pit |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 30/03/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 10.83 |
| Public Investment Corporation (SOC) Limited | 6.23 |
| Investec Asset Management (Pty) Ltd. | 5.12 |
| Van Eck Associates Corporation | 5.03 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 3.42 |
| Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) | 2.12 |
| Capital Research Global Investors | 1.12 |
| Old Mutual Investment Group (South Africa) (Pty) Limited | 0.97 |
| Dimensional Fund Advisors, L.P. | 0.6 |
| TOBAM | 0.55 |
| Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec | 0.53 |
| Majedie Asset Management Limited | 0.44 |
| First State Investments (U.K.) Ltd | 0.42 |
| Prudential Portfolio Managers (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd | 0.39 |
| California Public Employees' Retirement System | 0.38 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| AngloGold Ashanti Australia Limited | Australia |
| AngloGold Ashanti Córrego do Sítío Mineração S.A. | Brazil |
| AngloGold Ashanti (Ghana) Limited | Ghana |
| AngloGold Ashanti Holdings plc | Isle of Man |
| AngloGold Ashanti (Iduapriem) Limited | Ghana |
| AngloGold Ashanti USA Incorporated | USA |
| Cerro Vanguardia S.A. | Argentina |
| Geita Gold Mining Limited | Tanzania |
| Kibali (Jersey) Limited | Jersey |
| Mineração Serra Grande S.A. | Brazil |
| Societé AngloGold Ashanti de Guinée S.A. | Guinea |
| Société des Mines de Morila S.A. | Mali |
| Société d’Exploitation des Mines d’Or de Sadiola S.A. | Mali |
| Société d’Exploitation des Mines d’Or de Yatela S.A. | Mali |
| Tropicana joint venture | Australia |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Argentina | Australia | Brazil | Ghana | Guinea | Isle of Man |
| Jersey | Mali | South Africa | Tanzania | USA |
Recent involvements in Investor/State investment disputes (since 2014)
| Case Date | Case number | Case description | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | ARB/16/15 | AngloGold Ashanti (Ghana) Limited vs. Republic of Ghana (Mining concession) | Pending |
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.