Company report
Summary Results
Antofagasta is one of the five strongest performing companies for Business Conduct, largely due to its formal commitments on business ethics, anti-corruption and bribery, and transparency of mineral revenue payments. The company’s performance in this area also stems from its full disclosure of site-level payments to sub-national and national governments.
Antofagasta achieves one of the ten strongest results for Economic Development, Lifecycle Management and Environmental Responsibility. In Economic Development, the company’s best result relates to the partnerships it has developed for undertaking research and development on EESG issues related to mining. In Lifecycle Management, Antofagasta performance stems from its company-wide system to plan for land rehabilitation and post-mining land-use opportunities. In Environmental Responsibility, the company’s best results relate to its commitment to systematically avoid, minimise and mitigate its environmental impacts, and its efforts to track its performance in managing its greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption.
Conversely, Antofagasta’s overall results are limited by a relative lack of evidence of policies and systems to address Community Wellbeing, including human rights issues. For example, while the company has made a commitment to respect human rights, it shows little or no evidence of systematic human rights due diligence, or of reporting on its performance in managing human rights issues. Antofagasta also shows little evidence of tracking its performance on social issues such as the quality of its community relationships or its efforts to manage its impacts on women.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antucoya | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.50 |
| Centinela | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.50 |
| Los Pelambres | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 2.50 |
| Zaldívar | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antucoya | Chile | 70 | Copper | Open-pit | |
| Centinela | Esperanza, El Tesoro | Chile | 70 | Copper, Gold, Silver | Open-pit |
| Los Pelambres | Chile | 60 | Copper, Molybdenum, Gold | Open-pit | |
| Zaldívar | Chile | 50 | Copper | Open-pit |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michilla | Chile | Copper | Open-pit, Underground |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 30/03/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| E. Abaroa Foundation | 60.66 |
| Luksic (Jean-Paul) | 4.26 |
| First State Investments (Singapore) | 3 |
| RBC Global Asset Management (UK) Limited | 2.16 |
| Tweedy, Browne Company LLC | 2.04 |
| International Value Advisers, LLC | 1.97 |
| T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. | 1.1 |
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 0.91 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 0.91 |
| Schroder Investment Management Ltd. (SIM) | 0.83 |
| T. Rowe Price International (UK) Ltd. | 0.8 |
| Stewart Investors | 0.77 |
| Legal & General Investment Management Ltd. | 0.7 |
| G H Kluge & Sons Ltd | 0.54 |
| Pzena Investment Management, LLC | 0.48 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| Alfa Estates Limited | Jersey |
| Alto Maipo SpA | Chile |
| Anaconda South America Inc | USA |
| Andes Investments Company (Jersey) Limited | Jersey |
| Andes Re Limited | Bermuda |
| Andes Trust Limited (The) | UK |
| Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Company Limited | UK |
| Antofagasta Copper Limited | UK |
| Antofagasta Energy Jersey PCC | Jersey |
| Antofagasta Gold Limited | UK |
| Antofagasta Holdings Limited | UK |
| Antofagasta Investment Company Limited | Jersey |
| Antofagasta Metals Limited | UK |
| Antofagasta Minerals Adelaide Pty Limited | Australia |
| Antofagasta Minerals Australia Pty Limited | Australia |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Australia | Bermuda | Bolivia | British Virgin Islands | Canada | Chile |
| Jersey | Pakistan | Peru | UK | 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.