Company report
Summary Results
ArcelorMittal achieves one of the ten strongest results for Economic Development and Business Conduct. Its performance in these areas is largely the result of its systems for developing the skills of producing country populations, its formalised commitments on business ethics and anti-bribery and corruption, and its full disclosure of site-level payments to sub-national and national governments. ArcelorMittal also performs strongly on occupational health and safety, having made a formal commitment to provide a safe and healthy working environment and demonstrating systematic tracking of its performance on providing such conditions.
Conversely, ArcelorMittal’s overall results are limited by its lack of evidence on Lifecycle Management. For example, no evidence was found of the company having committed to plan for mine closure from an early stage or to systematically manage its impacts through all phases of a mining operation. Likewise, no evidence was found of ArcelorMittal designing and planning its operations to manage post-closure transition for workers or affected communities. The company’s relative lack of evidence of policies or systems to address Community Wellbeing issues also limits its overall results, with little or no evidence of systematic tracking of how well it is managing its socio-economic impacts.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Las Truchas | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Liberia | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1.50 |
| Lisakovsk | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Prijedor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrade | Brazil | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | |
| Atansore | Kazakhstan | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Atasu | Kazakhstan | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Baffinland* | Mary River | Canada | 44.5 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Fire Lake | Canada | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | |
| Hibbing Taconite Mines | USA | 62.31 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | |
| Karaganda | Kostenko, Stakhanovskaya, Kuzembaeva, Saranskaya, Sokurskaya, Aktasskaya, Abayskaya, Kalinina, Kazakhstanskaya, Lenina, Naklonnaya, Shakhtinskaya, Tentekskaya | Kazakhstan | 100 | Coal | Underground |
| Kentobe | Kazakhstan | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Kryviy Rih | Novokrivorozhsky | Ukraine | 95.13 | Iron Ore | Open-pit, Underground |
| Las Truchas | Lázaro Cárdenas | Mexico | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Liberia | Yekepa | Liberia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Lisakovsk | Lisakovsky, Shaimerden | Kazakhstan | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit, Underground |
| Ljubija | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 35.1 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | |
| Minorca Mines | Laurentian | USA | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Mont-Wright | Mt Wright | Canada | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Peña Colorada | Minatitlán | Mexico | 50 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Prijedor | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 51 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | |
| Princeton | Tazewell, McDowell, Low Vol, Mid Vol | USA | 100 | Coal | Open-pit, Underground |
| Serra Azul | Brazil | 100 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | |
| Volcan Mines | Sonora | Mexico | 100 | Iron Ore | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XMV Mine No. 36 | USA | 100 | Coal | Underground | 2009 |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tébessa | Algeria | Iron Ore | Open-pit, Underground |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 30/03/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| Mittal Family | 37.38 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 1.52 |
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 0.99 |
| Amundi Asset Management | 0.82 |
| Lyxor Asset Management | 0.68 |
| JPMorgan Asset Management U.K. Limited | 0.63 |
| Old Mutual Global Investors (UK) Limited | 0.38 |
| Natixis Asset Management | 0.35 |
| Caixabank Asset Management SGIIC, S.A.U. | 0.34 |
| BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. | 0.32 |
| Capfi Delen Asset Management | 0.3 |
| Cambiar Investors LLC | 0.28 |
| Nuveen LLC | 0.27 |
| BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited | 0.24 |
| Dimensional Fund Advisors, L.P. | 0.24 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. | Argentina |
| ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine S.A.S. | France |
| ArcelorMittal Belgium N.V. | Belgium |
| ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange S.A. | Luxembourg |
| ArcelorMittal Brasil S.A. | Brazil |
| ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH | Germany |
| ArcelorMittal Dofasco G.P. | Canada |
| ArcelorMittal Duisburg GmbH | Germany |
| ArcelorMittal Eisenhüttenstadt GmbH | Germany |
| ArcelorMittal España S.A. | Spain |
| ArcelorMittal Flat Carbon Europe S.A. | Luxembourg |
| ArcelorMittal Galati S.A. | Romania |
| ArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH | Germany |
| ArcelorMittal International Luxembourg S.A. | Luxembourg |
| ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. | Mexico |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Argentina | Belgium | Bermuda | Brazil | Canada | China |
| Czech Republic | France | Germany | Kazakhstan | Liberia | Luxembourg |
| Mexico | Netherlands | Poland | Romania | South Africa | Spain |
| Turkey | USA | Ukraine |
Recent involvements in Investor/State investment disputes (since 2014)
| Case Date | Case number | Case description | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | ARB/15/47 | ArcelorMittal vs. Arab Republic of Egypt (Steel plant) | Concluded |
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.