Key Findings

    1. Significant gaps remain with society expectations

    The performances of even the best-scoring companies fall considerably short of society expectations in all six thematic areas. Stronger efforts are required by all companies to ensure their practices are managed effectively, in light of society expectations and the SDGs.

     

    2. Some signs of progress, but mostly commitments

    Since the RMI Report 2018, more companies have made and disclosed formal commitments on some economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) issues. A few companies have developed new or stronger management standards. Yet many companies show little sign of movement and much needs to be done to translate corporate commitments and standards into successful business practices.

     

    3. Effectiveness requires persistence

    Most companies are still not able to demonstrate that they track and publicly report on how effectively they are managing EESG issues. Even fewer companies show evidence of reviewing their performance and taking responsive actions where necessary. Once commitments are in place it takes persistence to Plan-Do-Check-Act.

     

    4. Risk of SDG-washing

    It is good to see that companies are increasingly aligning their sustainability reporting with the SDGs. However this reporting is selective and risks the perception of SDG-washing as companies generally omit any mention of negative impacts potentially impeding the achievement of these internationally agreed objectives. It is essential that an honest picture emerges of the true challenges the mining sector faces in its support of the SDGs.

     

    5. Mine-site data still missing

    Many mine-sites do not disclose site-level data on issues of strong public interest for communities, workers, governments and investors. And very rarely do mine sites evidence engagement with local stakeholders on EESG issues. To build trust with all stakeholders and reduce risks, companies will benefit from adopting responsible mine-site behaviour across all their operations and transparently sharing information.

     

    6. External requirements drive performance

    Stronger-performing and more transparent companies tend to be subject to specific requirements set by investors or producing country or home country governments. For example, the investor-led request for disclosure of information on tailings storage facilities has generated much more publicly available data of critical interest to shareholders, debt issuers, insurers and governments.

     

    7. Severe adverse impacts must be addressed urgently

    Events such as the Vale tailings disaster in Brumadinho are harsh reminders of the unacceptable risks faced by many communities, workers and environments in mining areas. Such tragedies, and other adverse impacts and fatalities, reflect very poorly on the industry as a whole and put into stark perspective any claims of responsible EESG management. The mining industry needs to prove that it prioritises EESG risk management over short-term considerations.

     

    8. It can be done

    Although individual company results are generally very low, collectively the companies prove that society expectations are achievable. If one company were to attain all the highest scores seen for every indicator, it would reach over 70% of the maximum achievable score. Similarly for a mine site in the mine-site assessment, achieving all the best scores recorded would enable it to reach over 80%. Each company and mining operation is encouraged to adopt the responsible practices already being demonstrated across the sector.

     

    Copyright notice

    All data and written content are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

    Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)

    The licensed material may not be used for commercial purposes, or in a discriminating, degrading or distorting way. When cited, attribute to: “Responsible Mining Foundation (RMF), RMI Report 2020.” Images, photographs, and video content depicted on RMF websites are excluded from this license, except where noted.

    Disclaimer

    The findings, conclusions and interpretations within this RMI Report 2020 do not necessarily represent the views of funders, trustees, and employees of the Responsible Mining Foundation (RMF), 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 RMI Report 2020, the respective sections on the website should be consulted.

    The RMI Report 2020 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 Report 2020 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 RMI were invited to check the factual accuracy of the contextual data and evidence upon which the RMI is based and to review company information in the RMI document library.

    Country borders or names on maps do not reflect an official position of the RMF or anyone involved in its governance, employees or in service providers. Maps used are for illustrative purposes and do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the RMF, concerning the legal status of any country or territory or concerning the delimitation of frontiers or boundaries. Where needed, approaches used by the UN to present borders were followed.

    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 2020 RMI report should consult the web page for corrections or clarifications https://www.responsibleminingindex.org.