Local Employment	Local Procurement	Post-Closure Plans	Community Grievances	Worker Grievances
Air Quality	Water Quality	Water Quantity	Tailings Management	Emergency Preparedness

Company	Average Mine-Site Score (%)		Company	Average Mine-Site Score (%)
Teck	28.0		Buenaventura	11.3
BHP	24.5		Peabody Energy	9.3
Polymetal	23.8		Coal India	9.0
AngloGold Ashanti	20.4		Orano	6.8
Glencore	20.4		Fortescue	6.1
Newcrest Mining	19.7		First Quantum Minerals	5.1
Rio Tinto	18.8		Exxaro Resources	5.0
Vale	18.7		Zijin	4.4
Newmont	18.6		Sibanye-Stillwater	3.3
MMG	18.3		ArcelorMittal	3.1
Vedanta Resources	17.4		Industrias Peñoles	1.7
CODELCO	17.2		Grupo México	1.0
Barrick Gold Corp	15.3		Evraz	0.7
Freeport-McMoRan	15.3		ERG	0.3
Gold Fields	15.0		RUSAL	0.3
Antofagasta	14.9		Nordgold	0.3
Bumi Resources	14.5		Banpu	0.0
Anglo American	13.8		Navoi MMC	0.0
NMDC	11.3		China Shenhua	0.0

 

The ten charts below show the scores of the 180 assessed mine sites for each of the ten mine-site-level indicators.

Local Employment	Local Procurement
140 mine sites scored 0	129 mine sites scored 0
Post-closure Plans	Community Grievances
125 mine sites scored 0	121 mine sites scored 0
Worker Grievances	Air Quality
130 mine sites scored 0	141 mine sites scored 0
Water Quality	Water Quantity
149 mine sites scored 0	99 mine sites scored 0
Tailings Management	Emergency Preparedness
70 mine sites scored 0 ; 24 exceptions	149 mine sites scored 0

 

MS.01 Local Employment

While about one-fifth of the mine sites disclose some data relating to local employment, less than ten per cent of the mine sites publicly disclose the number of employees hired from local communities or local districts. Only a handful of mine sites disclose the number of contract workers hired locally, and only a few mine sites disclose the number of women hired locally.

 

MS.02 Local Procurement

While about one-third of the mine sites disclose some data relating to local procurement, less than twenty per cent of the mine sites publicly disclose the amount of money spent on goods and services from the local province or state, and even fewer mine sites disclose details on the types of goods and services procured locally. No mine sites show evidence of having recently discussed with local communities the targets of their programmes for local procurement.

 

MS.03 Post-closure Plans

While about one-third of the mine sites disclose some information relating to their expected closure, only a handful of mine sites show evidence of having informed affected communities of when the mining operation will stop or close definitively. Likewise, only a handful of mine sites provide any evidence of having engaged with affected communities in developing their post-closure plans or in discussing the implementation of these plans.

 

MS.04 Community Grievances

While about one-third of the mine sites disclose some information about a dedicated mine-site-level grievance mechanism for communities, only about 15 per cent of mine sites can demonstrate that the mechanism is currently operational for local communities and individuals to raise any issues of concern. A similarly small proportion of mine sites publicly disclose the number and types of grievances raised, and very few mine sites demonstrate they have been discussing with local communities the measures they are taking to avoid the same grievances being repeatedly raised.

 

MS.05 Worker Grievances

While a fair share of the companies have corporate-wide grievance mechanisms, these do not always enable reporting at the mine-site level, which partly explains the very low scores for this indicator. Less than ten per cent of mine sites publicly disclose the number and types of grievances raised by their workers and no mine sites can demonstrate they are discussing with worker representatives the measures being taken to avoid the same grievances being repeatedly raised.

 

MS.06 Air Quality

While about 20 per cent of mine sites disclose some data on air quality at the local level, only about five per cent of mine sites regularly disclose comprehensive air quality data for monitoring points in the vicinity of their sites. Similarly, while about 20 per cent of mine sites’ disclosures on air quality include information on when and where air quality fell below safety limits, only about five per cent of mine sites report this information to affected communities in a timely manner. Only a few mine sites show evidence of having held discussions with affected communities on air quality management.

 

MS.07 Water Quality

Only about ten per cent of mine sites publicly and regularly disclose comprehensive water quality data for monitoring points in the vicinity of their sites. Amongst these mine sites, only a handful of mine sites highlight, in a timely and accessible manner, when and where water quality falls below safety limits. Very few mine sites demonstrate that they are discussing with affected communities the actions they are taking to manage water quality. Regulatory frameworks strongly impact companies’ performances on disclosure. Overall, mine sites in India and Australia outperform others as they are required by the governmental authorities in these countries to publicly report their water quality monitoring results.

 

MS.08 Water Quantity

While nearly half of the mine sites report to some extent on the quantities of water withdrawn from the environment, only a few mine sites show evidence of having held discussions with affected communities about their shared water needs. There is hardly any evidence of mine sites developing actions or strategies with communities to reduce their water consumption. Overall, a significant amount of information on mine-site-level water withdrawals is disclosed as part of the CDP water project, which contributed to relatively strong performances on this element of the indicator.

 

MS.09 Tailings Management

About half of the assessed mine sites disclose the exact location of the tailing facilities associated with their operations but less than ten per cent of the sites provide public information on even the approximate area potentially affected by a failure of its tailings facilities. Likewise, very few mine sites show evidence of having provided information to local communities on what to do in the case of any tailings-related incident. Overall, a significant amount of public information on the location of tailings facilities is very recent and related to investors’ requests for more disclosure on tailings. This significantly contributed to the relatively strong performances on this element of the indicator.

 

MS.10 Emergency Preparedness

While about 15 per cent of mine sites disclose partial emergency response plans, related for example to pollution or cyanide exposure, only a handful of mine sites publicly disclose comprehensive emergency preparedness and response plans. About 15 per cent of mine sites state that they have informed affected communities of what to do in the case of an emergency. However, less than five per cent of the mine sites state that they have involved affected communities in testing their emergency response plans, and no mine sites provide actual evidence of having done so.

 

The absence of evidence at mine-site level stands in contrast to the lustre of sustainability reporting and company claims of supporting the SDGs. For each of the indicators (except the one on tailings management), a majority of the mine sites show no relevant evidence of any kind. And 44 mine sites – more than one-fifth of the selected set – score zero across all the indicators. The average score for a mine-site, across all the indicators, is only about ten per cent.

Most of the indicators have a disclosure-related element (e.g. disclosure of mine-site-level data on air quality) and a community engagement or worker engagement element (e.g. discussions with affected communities on the actions being taken by the mine-site to manage air quality). In general, there is little or no evidence from any of the mine sites that such engagement processes have been taking place.

Nonetheless, collectively the mine sites have proven that ‘it can be done’ – society expectations are achievable. If one mine site were to achieve all the best results seen for the mine-site indicators, it would score over 80 per cent, meaning that if there is widespread adoption of the good practices already underway at some mine sites, mining operations around the world would come close to meeting society expectations on these basic yet important issues.

There is a striking level of variability in the results achieved by different mine sites within a given company’s portfolio. With only a few exceptions, companies are clearly not applying the same standards across their operations.

A wide range of companies account for the strongest overall results in the mine-site assessment. Ten different companies are responsible for the nine better-scoring mine sites (two of which are Joint Venture operations) and these sites are found in widely differing geographies. In the case of some of these mine sites, their relatively stronger results are linked to requirements set by investors such as the IFC and the EBRD. In other cases, producing country regulations, especially on environmental monitoring and reporting, are directly responsible for stronger results. For example, mine sites in Chile, India and Australia generally outperform others on the disclosure of water quality, as they are required to publicly report such data by the regulatory authorities in these countries.

The results on some specific indicators also reflect the influence of external reporting frameworks and requests. For example, the 2019 request by the investor-led Mining & Tailings Safety Initiative for companies to disclose mine-site-level information on the location and safety of tailings storage facilities has generated a flurry of recent publicly available information on these issues. And those companies that use the CDP water reporting framework show stronger results on the disclosure of water withdrawals.

It is important to note that some mine sites that have drawn international attention, due to severe environmental or social adverse impacts, show a relatively high level of disclosure on the basics of responsible mining as a result of their increased exposure and external pressure to rebuild trust and limit future risks.

The mining industry is encouraged to take pro-active steps to ensure that strong mine-site-level disclosure becomes the norm.