All companies make some level of commitment to respect human rights. More than half of the companies have a formal, endorsed commitment explicitly referring to the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs). The vast majority of companies assign responsibilities and resources to operationalise these human rights commitments.

Most companies show some evidence of identifying and assessing impacts of their activities on human rights, and, in about half the cases, developing strategies or plans to address these impacts. However, most evidence relates to ad hoc actions and case studies, and only about one-quarter of the companies demonstrate having company-wide systems in place. Only a handful of companies provide data on the implementation status of these human rights due diligence processes. While some companies can demonstrate that they conduct human rights due diligence on their business partners and supply chains, they generally do not implement the same due diligence for their own operations (see B.08.1).

More than half of the companies provide at least some data on their performance in preventing and remedying adverse impacts on human-rights associated with their operations, tracking and publicly disclosing either the number or nature of cases and/or actions taken in response. However, hardly any company discloses such data over time or against targets. Only a handful of companies can demonstrate they review or audit the effectiveness of their measures to prevent and remedy adverse human rights impacts. A similarly small number of companies show any evidence of corrective measures taken in response to these audits.

While about one-quarter of the companies have made some level of commitment to respect the rights of human rights defenders in their areas of operation, only four have made a formal commitment on this issue. These four companies have also assigned responsibilities and resources to operationalise their commitments.

Only a handful of companies can demonstrate that they have a management system in place to review the background of security personnel to prevent the company from employing individuals credibly implicated in human rights abuses. Fewer companies show evidence they require security personnel, including through contractual provisions, to investigate and report all cases where physical force is used. A similarly small number of companies include in their systems requirements to conduct investigations of unlawful or abusive behaviour by security personnel towards workers or affected communities and to take appropriate disciplinary action.

About one-third of companies track and publicly disclose some data on the education and training of their security personnel and private and public security forces to prevent human rights abuses. While a minority of companies show evidence of having undertaken audits or reviews of the security performance and/or implementation of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, there is no evidence that these have covered the effectiveness of training and education of personnel on human rights issues. There is even less evidence of responsive actions taken by companies based on the findings of these rare audits or reviews.

Only a handful of companies show any evidence that they identify and assess risks for workers and communities specifically associated with their presence in any conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs). And virtually no company can demonstrate having requirements for their operations to develop strategies and plans to address these identified risks. Although a number of companies have claimed this indicator was not relevant to their businesses, only five companies can demonstrate that they have conducted recent comprehensive risk assessments that confirm none of their operations is located in any CAHRAs.

More than half of the companies provide no evidence of measures to enable the participation of vulnerable groups in discussions and decision-making on matters that may impact them. Only a handful of companies demonstrate that they have a company-wide approach or system to ensure their operations take specific measures to do so. Fewer companies specifically mention the need to enable the participation of women or youth, and even fewer make explicit mention of the need to enable the participation of persons with disabilities.

While about half of the companies publicly disclose some information on the quality of their relationships with affected communities, only three companies share detailed tracking data. Very few companies show evidence of having conducted reviews or audits of the effectiveness of their measures to build and maintain trust-based relationships with those communities, and even fewer disclose information on actions taken in response to those reviews or audits.

Most 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, though only one provides details on its system. One company clearly demonstrates it tracks the implementation of these activities across its sites.

The vast majority of companies show at least some evidence of developing strategies and plans to support local procurement, including four companies that clearly demonstrate dedicated, company-wide management systems and implementation of programmes to support and develop local procurement opportunities across their operations. However, only two companies’ standards refer to taking special measures to ensure the inclusion of women in these strategies or plans, though some other companies do show limited evidence, usually isolated examples or case studies, of developing capacity and procurement opportunities for women suppliers. Very few companies provide any implementation tracking data on these strategies and plans.

No company can demonstrate it has systems in place to ensure its operations assess and disclose any impacts of their activities on women, youth or children. Only three companies show any evidence (ad hoc case studies) that their operations conducting assessments of the impacts of their activities on women. Similarly, only two companies refer to some instances of assessments of impacts on children. And no company shows any such evidence relating to the impacts of their activities on youth.

About half the companies show some evidence of identifying the adverse impacts of their operations on land use and access to land by affected communities. The evidence is usually limited to case studies, although some companies show evidence of management systems relating to land acquisition, resettlement, or closure. 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 hardly any evidence that companies track their implementation of these strategies or plans.

A handful of companies show evidence that they assess their impacts on community health. This mostly consists of brief mentions of such impacts within Human Rights Impact Assessments or Environmental and Social Impact Assessments. A handful of companies have systems in place to address the health impacts identified. No company provides evidence of tracking the implementation of plans to address these impacts.

Data and evidence on gender impact assessment processes is consistently lacking across the companies assessed. Only one company discloses minimal information on managing the impacts of its activities on women. No other company demonstrates any action on this issue.

About two-thirds of companies demonstrate that they have some activities or systems in place to identify the rights, interests, needs and perspectives of affected Indigenous Peoples groups. However, only a handful of companies show evidence of systematic approaches to identifying potentially affected Indigenous Peoples groups through a process of inclusive participation. A similarly small number of companies 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 of their performance on respecting the rights and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples and avoiding adverse impacts their livelihoods and heritage. A few companies disclose the full agreements they have signed with Indigenous Peoples. There is much less evidence that companies audit or review the effectiveness of measures taken, and even less evidence of companies taking responsive action on the findings of these audits/reviews to improve their performance.

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. Virtually no company’s commitment on FPIC extends the principle to other project-affected groups.

Two-thirds of companies show some evidence of assessing 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. Only one-quarter of companies also have systems (generally management standards) for developing strategies or plans to address these impacts, and a similar number of companies show some evidence of systems to involve project-affected people in the impact assessment and in developing the strategies to manage those 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 track and publicly disclose the extent to which livelihoods have been successfully improved or restored following such resettlement. Only a few companies show evidence of having conducted recent reviews or audits of the effectiveness of their measures taken to manage involuntary resettlement.

A handful of companies show evidence of having systems in place for identifying any ASM communities and activities in and around their operations. More than half of companies with ASM activities present near their operations also show some evidence of developing plans to engage with those communities, but only a few companies provide information on the progress in implementing these plans. Eight companies demonstrate that they have conducted recent comprehensive risk assessments that confirm no ASM operations take place in or around their areas of operation.

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. A similar number of companies show evidence their operations engage to some extent with ASM miners in these assessments or in the development of strategies or plans in response to these assessments. However, most evidence is limited to ad hoc examples or case studies, with only one company showing evidence of a detailed company-wide standard for developing such plans to support ASM activities.

Almost three-quarters of companies show at least some evidence of tracking the functioning and uptake of their community grievance mechanisms, but there is generally little or no detail on the actions taken in response to the grievances received. The data is almost never disclosed over time or against targets. Only a handful of companies demonstrate they have undertaken recent reviews or audits of the effectiveness of their community grievance mechanisms. There is almost no evidence of companies acting on the results of these reviews or audits to improve the effectiveness of these mechanisms.