ERG
Quick access
Headquarters
Luxembourg
Stock Exchange Listings
Not listed
Workforce
Employees: 67,272 (31/12/2019)
Contract workers: Not Reported (Not Reported)
Total: Not Reported (Not Reported)
Geographic Footprint
Producing countries: 3
Known tax jurisdictions: 15
Revenues (in BUSD)
Total Revenue: 5.356 (31/12/2020)
Net Income: Not Reported (31/12/2020)
State Ownership
Kazakhstan: 40
2019 Fatalities
Total worker fatalities: 11
  • Employees: 10
  • Contract workers: 1
Others: Not Specified
2020 Fatalities
Total worker fatalities: 4
  • Employees: 3
  • Contract workers: 1
Others: Not Specified
Home countries, where the company is headquartered
Producing countries, where the company has mining operations
Mine sites selected for mine-site-level assessment

Summary of Results

Economic DevelopmentBusiness ConductLifecycle ManagementCommunity WellbeingWorking ConditionsEnvironmental Responsibility0%20%40%60%80%100%
  • ERG
  • RMI average
  • Collective Best Score

Absolute results remain low overall and ERG’s results are mostly limited to its formal commitments, for example on preventing bribery and corruption, and ensuring safe and healthy working conditions. Other areas which contributed to ERG’s overall results include for example its relatively strong disclosure of serious injuries and safety incidents.

ERG is associated with a leading practice on supporting national skills development by collaborating on an initiative to identify and develop the critical professions for the future.

ERG’s results in the company-wide assessment are below the average in all thematic areas except Economic Development. Despite its commitments and disclosures, the company’s overall results are limited by a lack of evidence of action on a number of key issues, such as disclosing information on the location and safety of its tailings storage facilities. Additionally, while ERG has made a formal commitment to respect human rights, it shows no evidence of tracking its performance on managing human rights issues.

ERG ranks 38th among the 40 companies on its mine-site-level results, with an average score of only 1% in the mine-site assessment. The results of the seven ERG mine sites assessed in the mine-site assessment are strikingly weak. With the exception of very limited evidence from two mine sites on three issues, none of the sites show any relevant evidence on any of the fifteen issues covered in the mine-site assessment.

Overall results

Economic Development

23.80 / 100.002022
20.00 / 100.002020

Business Conduct

24.30 / 100.002022
22.00 / 100.002020

Lifecycle Management

3.70 / 100.002022
1.00 / 100.002020

Community Wellbeing

11.10 / 100.002022
12.00 / 100.002020

Working Conditions

20.90 / 100.002022
21.00 / 100.002020

Environmental Responsibility

12.80 / 100.002022
12.00 / 100.002020

Average Mine-Site Score

1%2022
2022
24
%
2020
20
%

Economic Development

2022
24
%
2020
22
%

Business Conduct

2022
4
%
2020
1
%

Lifecycle Management

2022
11
%
2020
12
%

Community Wellbeing

2022
21
%
2020
21
%

Working Conditions

2022
13
%
2020
12
%

Environmental Responsibility

2022
1
%

Average Mine-Site Score

Compare with 2020 results

Results per measurement area

Commitment

(9 indicators)

Action

(42 indicators)

Effectiveness

(20 indicators)

Results per indicator

Economic Development

Mine-site Results

Mine sites selected for individual assessment (but not included in the overall company score)

Click on a mine site name to open its individual result page
DonskoyFrontierKazmarganetsKrasno-OktyabrskoyeMetalkolSokolovskyVostochny
Local Employment
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Local Procurement
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Air Quality
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Water Quality
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Water Quantity
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Rehabilitation and Post-Closure
(score /4)		0.00.50.00.00.00.00.0
Tailings Management
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Safety of Communities
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Community Grievances
(score /4)		0.00.50.00.00.50.00.0
Safety and Health of Workers
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Women Workers
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Workplace Deaths and Injuries
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Training of Workers
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Decent Living Wage
(score /4)		0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Worker Grievances
(score /4)		0.01.00.00.01.00.00.0
Mine Site Score
(%)		0.03.00.00.03.00.00.0

Operational mine sites

Mine Site NameAliases/Other namesCountryCompany's share (%)ProductsMining types
CentralnyShubarkol Komir JSCKazakhstan100CoalOpen-pit
DonskoyTNC Kazchrome JSC, 10th Anniversary of Independence, Molodezhnaya, Yuzhny, PervomayskoyeKazakhstan100ChromiteOpen-pit, Underground
FrontierLufua, KishibaDRC95Copper, CobaltOpen-pit
KacharskySSGPO JSCKazakhstan100Iron OreOpen-pit
KazmarganetsTur, Vostochny Kamys, TNC Kazchrome JSCKazakhstan100Manganese OreOpen-pit
Krasno-OktyabrskoyeAluminium of Kazakhstan JSCKazakhstan100BauxiteOpen-pit
KurzhunkulskySSGPO JSCKazakhstan100Iron OreOpen-pit
MetalkolRTR (Roan Tailings Reclamation)DRC95Cobalt, CopperTailings Leach
Pedra de FerroBaminBrazil100Iron OreOpen-pit
SarbaiskySSGPO JSCKazakhstan100Iron OreOpen-pit
SokolovskySSGPO JSCKazakhstan100Iron OreOpen-pit, Underground
VostochnyEEC JSCKazakhstan100CoalOpen-pit
ZapadnyShubarkol Komir JSCKazakhstan100CoalOpen-pit

Closed mine sites (known)
(controlled assets under care & maintenance, closure or post-closure management)

Mine Site NameAliases/Other namesCountryCompany's share (%)ProductsMining typesYear of closure
BossKakanda, Luita, Mukundo Mountain, Kabolela, Disele, MendaDRC51Copper, CobaltOpen-pit2019
Comide-DRC65.35Cobalt, CopperOpen-pit2017
Lonshi-DRC70CopperOpen-pit2008
PoiskovyTNC Kazchrome JSCKazakhstan100ChromiteOpen-pit2008
TorgayskoyeAluminium of Kazakhstan JSC, TBRUKazakhstan100BauxiteOpen-pit0

Tax Jurisdictions (known)

Brazil

China

DRC

Kazakhstan

Luxembourg

Mali

Mauritius

Mozambique

Netherlands

Russian Federation

South Africa

Switzerland

UAE

Zambia

Zimbabwe

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 2022.” 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 2022 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 2022, the respective sections on the website should be consulted.

The RMI Report 2022 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 2022 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 2022 RMI report should consult the web page for corrections or clarifications https://www.responsibleminingindex.org.