The vast majority of the companies have made some level of commitments to respect human rights. Half of the companies have a formal, endorsed, commitment referring to the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs), while about ten companies have a formal policy but do not make any reference to UNGPs and a handful of other companies make a simple mention of a commitment to respect human rights.

The majority of companies provide some information on their approach to identify and assess salient or broader impacts of their activities on human rights, but only a handful of companies show evidence of having systems in place to develop strategies or plans to address these impacts, and even fewer companies show evidence of tracking the implementation of these strategies or plans.

Generally, companies provide little or no information on their performance on managing human rights issues (such as progress on the implementation of human rights due diligence processes). Similarly, only a few companies demonstrate they have conducted recent audits or reviews on their performance on this issue.

A handful of companies have made some level of explicit commitment to respect the rights of human rights defenders. One company still stands out as having made a formal commitment, endorsed by senior management, on this issue.

About half of the companies disclose some (usually limited) data relating to their performance on preventing and remedying potential human rights abuses related to their security management, with one company standing out as it provides detailed performance tracking. Some companies demonstrate that they have requirements for regular audits, in line with the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and a few companies also demonstrate they have taken actions in response to recent reviews/audits.

Very few companies demonstrate that they have developed company-wide approaches to identify and/or manage risks to workers and communities in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. The vast majority of companies show no such evidence, with a handful of companies being granted exceptions on the basis that they are not present in any conflict-affected or high-risk areas. One company has detailed guidelines related to conflict management measures, which its mine sites are required to implement and track.

A handful of companies demonstrate that they have a company-wide approach or system to ensure their operations take specific measures to enable the participation of vulnerable groups in discussions and decision-making on matters that may impact them. Fewer companies specifically mention the need to enable the participation of women or youth, and fewer still make explicit mention of the need to enable the participation of persons with disabilities.

A handful of companies track and disclose data on the quality of their relationships with affected communities, with one company demonstrating that it has developed a performance standard on this issue. Fewer companies show evidence of having conducted reviews/audits of the effectiveness of their measures to build and maintain trust-based relationships with affected communities.

The majority of companies show some evidence of developing strategies and plans to support local entrepreneurship and local business development, although much of the evidence comes from isolated cases rather than company-wide approaches to ensure these activities are implemented across all operations. A few companies show evidence of requiring their mine sites to actively include women in these strategies and plans. Only one company clearly demonstrates that it tracks progress on the implementation of these activities.

Most of the companies show at least some evidence of establishing strategies or plans to develop local procurement opportunities, with three companies clearly demonstrating corporate-level systems (e.g. management standards) to ensure such actions are implemented across all their operations. Only two companies’ standards make reference to taking special measures to ensure the inclusion of women in these strategies or plans. One company demonstrates detailed tracking of the implementation of these strategies or plans for developing local procurement opportunities.

Only a few companies show (very limited) evidence of having systems in place to ensure their operations conduct and disclose regular assessments of the impacts of their activities on women. No companies show any such evidence relating to the impacts of their activities on youth, and hardly any companies show any evidence relating to the impacts of their activities on children.

Most companies provide some degree of tracking data on their performance on managing their socio-economic impacts, though much of this is quite limited in scope. Similarly, most companies show some evidence of conducting audits or reviews on their performance on this issue, but these are often limited in scope or in detail. Generally, there is quite limited information on any actions taken on the basis of these audits or reviews to improve the effectiveness of measures taken to manage socio-economic impacts.

Only a handful of companies provide evidence of having systems to ensure their operations identify and assess their adverse impacts on land use and access to land by affected communities. The evidence relates mainly to land acquisition, resettlement and/or agreements made with indigenous peoples. Two companies go further, with detailed systems for identifying and assessing a full range of land-use related impacts. There is less evidence of systems to develop strategies or plans to address these impacts, and even less evidence of companies tracking the implementation of these strategies or plans.

Less than half of the companies demonstrate that they are assessing their impacts on community health and developing plans to address these impacts. For those companies that do provide evidence of health impact assessment, this relates mostly to brief mentions of such impacts within Human Rights Impact Assessments or Environmental and Social Impact Assessments. No company provides evidence of tracking the implementation of plans to address these impacts.

Other than one company that shows minimal evidence of tracking and disclosing data on its performance on managing any impacts of its activities on women, no other company demonstrates any action on this issue.

Most of the companies demonstrate to some extent that they have activities or systems in place to identify the rights, interests, needs and perspectives of affected Indigenous Peoples groups. A handful of companies show clear evidence of systematic approaches to identifying potentially affected Indigenous Peoples groups and their rights, interests, needs and perspectives, through a process of inclusive participation. These companies also demonstrate that they systematically develop plans to ensure these rights, interests, needs and perspectives are respected.

Most companies show some degree of tracking and reporting on their performance on respecting the rights and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples and avoiding adverse impacts of their activities. A handful of companies disclose comprehensive tracking data and a few companies disclose the full agreements they have signed with Indigenous Peoples.

While most companies make mention of their position on FPIC, only a few companies have made formal commitments to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to FPIC. No companies’ commitments on FPIC extend the principle to other project-affected groups.

Approximately half of the companies show some degree of evidence of actions to assess the potential impacts of involuntary physical and/or economic displacement of project-affected people. However only a handful of companies demonstrate they have company-wide systems in place for resettlement-related impact assessment. About one-quarter of the companies also have systems (generally management standards) for developing strategies or plans to address these impacts, and a handful of companies have systems to involve project-affected people in the assessment of impacts and in the development of strategies to manage these impacts.

While some companies provide information relating to the number of resettlement processes underway, the amounts of compensation paid or the number of individuals affected by resettlement, very few companies report on their performance the extent to which livelihoods have been successfully restored following such resettlement. A few companies show evidence of having conducted recent reviews or audits on their performance on this issue.

A handful of companies show evidence of having systems in place for identifying any ASM communities and activities in and around their operations. A handful of companies also show some evidence of developing plans to engage with ASM activities and a few companies provide some (limited) information on the progress in implementing these plans.

Only a few companies provide (very limited) evidence of assessing the need for, and feasibility of, providing technical and/or livelihood support to ASM miners. One company shows evidence of having prepared a detail standard for developing plans to support ASM activities.

Less than half of the companies show any evidence of tracking the functioning and uptake of their community grievance mechanisms, and no company provides details on the actions taken in response to the grievances received. A few companies demonstrate they have undertaken recent reviews or audits on the effectiveness of their community grievance mechanisms, and there is barely any evidence of companies acting on the results of these reviews or audits to improve the effectiveness of these mechanisms.