Company report
Summary Results
BHP is one of the three strongest performing companies for Business Conduct, and one of the ten strongest for Community Wellbeing and Environmental Responsibility. The company’s best results in Business Conduct relate to the disclosure of mineral revenues paid to producing country governments; BHP commits to engage in multi-stakeholder forums to improve the transparency of mineral revenues and fully discloses the payments it makes to sub-national and national governments. This attention to mineral revenue transparency accounts for some of BHP’s best results across all thematic areas, alongside its systematic tracking of its performance on providing safe and healthy working conditions and its commitment to manage its environmental impacts systematically, through the mitigation hierarchy approach.
BHP’s best performance on Community Wellbeing relates to its tracking of the quality of its relationships with affected communities. Overall, BHP’s results are limited by its lack of evidence of having integrated broader economic development issues or of having adopted a lifecycle management approach. For example, no evidence was found of BHP designing and planning its operations to manage post-closure transition for workers or affected communities.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerro Colorado | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.50 |
| Escondida | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1.33 |
| Spence | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.50 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antamina (BHP Billiton)* | Peru | 33.75 | Copper, Zinc, Molybdenum, Lead, Silver, Bismuth | Open-pit | |
| Area C | Mt Goldsworthy, Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Blackwater | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Broadmeadow | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates | Australia | 50 | Coal | Underground |
| Caval Ridge | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Cerrejón (BHP Billiton)* | Colombia | 33.33 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Cerro Colorado | Chile | 100 | Copper | Open-pit | |
| Cliffs | Nickel West | Australia | 100 | Nickel | Underground |
| Crinum | Queensland Coal, Gregory JV | Australia | 50 | Coal | Underground |
| Daunia | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Escondida | Chile | 57.5 | Copper, Silver, Gold | Open-pit | |
| Goonyella Riverside | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates, Broadmeadow | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Gregory | Queensland Coal, Gregory JV | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit |
| JW4 | Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 68 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Jimblebar | Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Leinster | Nickel West | Australia | 100 | Nickel | Open-pit, Underground |
| Mt Arthur Coal | New South Wales Energy Coal | Australia | 100 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Mt Keith | Nickel West | Australia | 100 | Nickel | Open-pit |
| Mt Newman | Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Navajo | USA | 0 | Coal | Open-pit | |
| Norwich Park | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Olympic Dam | Australia | 100 | Copper, Gold, Uranium Oxide, Silver | Underground | |
| POSMAC | Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 65 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Peak Downs | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates | Australia | 50 | Copper | Open-pit |
| Poitrel | Queensland Coal, BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal, BMC | Australia | 80 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Samarco (BHP Billiton)* | Germano, Complexo de Alegria | Brazil | 50 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Saraji | Queensland Coal, Central Queensland Coal Associates | Australia | 50 | Coal | Open-pit |
| South Walker Creek | Queensland Coal, BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal, BMC | Australia | 80 | Coal | Open-pit |
| Spence | Chile | 100 | Copper | Open-pit | |
| Wheelarra | Australia | 51 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | |
| Yandi | Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit |
| Yarrie | Mt Goldsworthy, Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 85 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambrosia Lake | USA | 100 | Uranium Oxide | Underground | 1999 | |
| Beenup | Australia | 100 | Titanium | Open-pit | 1999 | |
| Carson Hill | USA | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Tailings Leach | 1990 | |
| Goldsworthy | Australia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | 1982 | |
| Island | Canada | 100 | Copper, Molybdenum, Silver, Gold | Open-pit | 1996 | |
| Jenipapo | Brazil | 100 | Gold | 1992 | ||
| Lisbon | USA | 100 | Uranium Oxide | Underground | 1989 | |
| Lusang | Indonesia | 70 | Gold | Underground | 1995 | |
| McCabe | Gladstone | USA | 100 | Gold, Copper, Silver | Underground, Tailings Leach | 1993 |
| Nimingarra | Mt Goldsworthy, Western Australia Iron Ore, WAIO | Australia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | 2007 |
| San Manuel | Kalamazoo | USA | 100 | Copper, Molybdenum, Silver, Gold | Open-pit, Underground | 2003 |
| Selbaie | Canada | 100 | Zinc, Copper, Gold, Silver | Open-pit | 2004 | |
| Shay Gap | Australia | 85 | Iron Ore | Open-pit | 1993 | |
| Stanleigh | Canada | 100 | Uranium Oxide | Open-pit | 1996 |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haju | IndoMet Coal | Indonesia | Coal | Open-pit |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 30/03/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. | 10.09 |
| Aberdeen Asset Investments Limited | 4.88 |
| Elliott Management Corporation | 4.66 |
| Public Investment Corporation (SOC) Limited | 2.97 |
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 2.76 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 2.7 |
| Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) | 2.33 |
| Legal & General Investment Management Ltd. | 2.19 |
| Schroder Investment Management Ltd. (SIM) | 1.49 |
| Capital World Investors | 1.42 |
| Capital Research Global Investors | 1.16 |
| State Street Global Advisors (UK) Ltd. | 1.13 |
| SAFE Investment Company Limited | 1.12 |
| Alecta pensionsförsäkring, ömsesidigt | 1.02 |
| UBS Asset Management (Switzerland) | 0.85 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 03/02/2018 | Country |
|---|---|
| 141 Union Company | USA |
| Agnew Pastoral Company Pty Ltd | Australia |
| Albion Downs Pty Limited | Australia |
| Araguaia Participaçóes Ltda | Brazil |
| Bass Strait | Australia |
| BHPB Freight Pty Ltd (a)(b) | Australia |
| BHP Billiton Aluminium Australia Pty Ltd | Australia |
| BHP Billiton (AUS) DDS Pty Ltd | Australia |
| BHP Billiton Australia UK Finance Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| BHP Billiton Boliviana de Petróleo Inc. | USA |
| BHP Billiton Brasil Exploração e Produção de Petróleo Limitada | Brazil |
| BHP Billiton Brasil Investimentos de Petróleo Ltda | Brazil |
| BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda | Brazil |
| BHP Billiton Canada Inc. | Canada |
| BHP Billiton Capital Inc. | USA |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Algeria | Anguilla | Argentina | Australia | Bermuda | Brazil |
| British Virgin Islands | Canada | Cayman Islands | Chile | China | Colombia |
| DRC | Guernsey | India | Indonesia | Ireland | Japan |
| Jersey | Liberia | Malaysia | Mexico | Netherlands | Panama |
| Papua New Guinea | Peru | Philippines | Saint Lucia | Singapore | South Africa |
| Switzerland | Trinidad and Tobago | 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.