Absolute results remain low overall and Evraz’s results are largely dependent on the formal commitments it has made, to prevent bribery and corruption and ensure safe and healthy working conditions. Evraz’s results also rely in part on its disclosure of the payments it makes to national and sub-national governments, in line with the UK regulations on this issue, and its disclosure of the location and safety of its tailings storage facilities along with other companies, following the recent investor request.

Evraz ranks 32nd among the 38 companies on its mine-site-level results, with an average score of only 1% in the mine-site assessment.

In the company-wide assessment, Evraz shows relatively stronger results on the issue of technical and managerial training of local workforces. The company shows evidence of extensive programmes to develop the skills and competencies of its national workers in producing countries, and to provide these workers with professional development opportunities.

Evraz is associated with a leading practice on mitigating the impacts on workers of temporary reductions in its workforce.

However, Evraz’s overall results in the company-wide assessment are below the average across all 38 companies in three of the six thematic areas: Lifecycle Management, Community Wellbeing and Environmental Responsibility. The company’s overall results are limited by a lack of evidence of action on some key issues. For example, the company shows no evidence of supporting local entrepreneurship and local business development, establishing recruitment and employment practices based on equal opportunity, or planning for the management of post-closure transition for workers and affected communities. And, while Evraz has disclosed information relating to its tailings storage facilities, it shows no evidence of tracking and reviewing its performance on addressing the potential risks related to its tailings facilities.

Moreover, the overall results of the five Evraz mine sites assessed in the mine-site assessment are strikingly weak. Four of these five mine sites show no relevant evidence on any of the ten issues covered in the mine-site assessment.