Company report
Summary Results
Teck Resources is one of the three strongest performing companies for two areas: Lifecycle Management and Environmental Responsibility. In Lifecycle Management, Teck Resources’s results are in part due to the systems it has put in place to ensure its operations plan and budget for land rehabilitation and post-mining land-use, taking into consideration stakeholder expectations. In Environmental Responsibility, one of the company’s strongest performances relates to emergency preparedness. Notably, Teck Resources has company-wide systems in place to ensure its operations involve local stakeholders in the design and testing of emergency response plans.
Teck Resources achieves one of the five strongest results for Community Wellbeing, and one of the ten strongest for Economic Development, Business Conduct and Working Conditions. In Community Wellbeing, one of the company’s strongest results relates to community engagement. The company has systems in place to ensure its operations develop mechanisms for community members to participate in decision-making on matters that may impact them. In Business Conduct, the company’s performance is driven by its disclosure of its lobbying practices and positions, and its payments to sub-national and national governments, as well as its formal commitments on business ethics, anti-bribery and corruption and transparency of mineral revenues. In Working Conditions, Teck Resources’s strongest results relate to its commitment to provide safe and healthy workplaces and its tracking of its performance on this issue.
Overall, Teck Resources’s results across all areas are limited by a lack of evidence on Economic Development. For example, no evidence was found of Teck Resources having systems in place to develop procurement opportunities for producing country suppliers beyond those located locally to its mining operations.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carmen de Andacollo | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.67 |
| Quebrada Blanca | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2.17 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antamina (Teck Resources)* | Peru | 22.5 | Copper, Zinc, Molybdenum, Lead, Silver, Bismuth | Open-pit | |
| Cardinal River | Canada | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Carmen de Andacollo | Chile | 90 | Copper, Gold | Open-pit | |
| Coal Mountain | Canada | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Elkview | Canada | 95 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Fording River | Canada | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Greenhills Operations | Canada | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Highland Valley Copper | HVC, Bethlehem | Canada | 100 | Copper, Molybdenum | Open-pit |
| Line Creek | Canada | 100 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Pend Oreille | USA | 100 | Zinc, Lead | Underground | |
| Quebrada Blanca | Chile | 76.5 | Copper | Open-pit | |
| Red Dog | USA | 100 | Zinc, Lead, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apex | USA | 100 | Copper, Gallium, Germanium | Underground | 2003 | |
| Beavervell | Canada | 100 | Silver, Gold | Open-pit | 1991 | |
| Bluebell | Canada | 100 | Lead, Zinc, Silver | Underground | 1972 | |
| Bullmoose | Canada | 60.9 | Coal | Open-pit | 2002 | |
| Louvicourt | Canada | 55 | Zinc, Copper | Underground | 2005 | |
| Magmont | USA | 50 | Lead, Zinc | Underground | 1995 | |
| McCracken | USA | 100 | Silver, Lead, Zinc | Underground | 1985 | |
| Polaris | Canada | 100 | Zinc, Lead | Underground | 2002 | |
| Quintette | Canada | 92.6 | Coal | Open-pit | 2001 | |
| Sa Dena Hes | Mount Hundere | Canada | 50 | Lead, Zinc | Underground | 1992 |
| Sullivan | Canada | 100 | Zinc, Lead, Silver | Underground | 2001 |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 09/02/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| China Investment Corporation | 10.49 |
| Capital Research Global Investors | 7.79 |
| Capital World Investors | 7.52 |
| Impala Asset Management, LLC | 2.39 |
| Letko, Brosseau & Associates Inc. | 2.38 |
| RBC Global Asset Management Inc. | 2.13 |
| Connor, Clark & Lunn Investment Management Ltd. | 2.12 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 1.93 |
| CIBC Asset Management Inc. | 1.48 |
| Van Eck Associates Corporation | 1.46 |
| TD Asset Management Inc. | 1.42 |
| BMO Asset Management Inc. | 1.32 |
| GMT Capital Corp. | 1.13 |
| CIBC World Markets Inc. | 1.11 |
| Laurion Capital Management LP | 1.07 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2017 | Country |
|---|---|
| Compañía Minera de Antamina S.A. | Peru |
| Compañía Minera Teck Carmen de Andacollo S.A. | Chile |
| Compañia Minera Teck Quebrada Blanca S.A | Chile |
| Elkview Limited Partnership | Canada |
| Fording Partnership | Canada |
| Fort Hills Energy Limited Partnership | Canada |
| TCAI Incorporated | USA |
| TCL U.S. Holdings Ltd. | Canada |
| Teck Alaska Incorporated | USA |
| Teck American Incorporated | USA |
| Teck Base Metals Ltd. | Canada |
| Teck Chilean Holdings Ltd. | Canada |
| Teck Coal Partnership | Canada |
| Teck Highland Valley Copper Partnership | Canada |
| Teck Metals Ltd. | Canada |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Canada | Chile | Peru | 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.