Almost all companies provide some evidence of a formal commitment to manage their environmental impacts and nearly half the companies specify applying a mitigation hierarchy approach or its equivalent that first seeks avoidance or prevention of impacts, before envisaging minimising, mitigation or compensation. The vast majority of companies assign responsibilities and resources to operationalise these commitments.

While the vast majority of companies provide evidence that they require operations to assess the environmental impacts of their activities, few companies demonstrate that this follows an integrated approach that considers the socio-economic linkages to environmental impacts. More than one-third of companies have a system for identifying baseline environmental conditions at each of their operations. One company provides detailed evidence of a company-wide system for regularly and systematically presenting and discussing the results of these assessments with local communities.

More than half of companies publicly disclose the number and exact location of all their tailings storage facilities, as well as the construction method and consequence classification, making this information freely available on their company websites. Only a small minority of companies failed to provide any of this information. The majority of disclosures came in response to the Investor Mining & Tailings Safety Initiative, initiated in 2019 by the Church of England Pensions Board and the Swedish Council of Ethics of the AP Funds.

Only a few companies can demonstrate having systems in place to assign accountability for tailings management and safety to an accountable executive officer, such as a CEO, COO or vice-president. Approximately half the companies show evidence that they ensure their operations appoint a site-specific Responsible Tailings Facility Engineer (RTFE), but they generally cannot demonstrate that the primary reporting line for these RTFEs culminate with an Accountable Executive Officer for tailings safety at the corporate level. Three-quarters of companies in the report make reference to independent reviews of the design, stability and integrity of their tailing facilities, but there is generally limited information on the scope and content of these reviews or their regularity. Evidence for the reviews is often limited to isolated examples or case studies rather than formalised company-wide systems.

A limited number of companies track and publicly disclose data, on their performance in addressing potential risks related to their tailings facilities. The information provided is often limited to the number of incidents, although some companies provide details on activities conducted to address and prevent tailings risks. Fewer companies also provide information on third-party audits or reviews of the effectiveness of their tailings risk management. A similarly small number of companies demonstrate they take corrective actions in response to these audits or reviews, to seek to improve the effectiveness of its measures. Overall, more than one quarter of companies offer no data on performance or evidence of third-party audits on this issue. Performance tracking information most frequently come in response to the Investor Mining & Tailings Safety Initiative (see F.02.1).

While almost all companies disclose some information on their water management approach, only four companies demonstrate they have systems in place to ensure their operations develop water stewardship strategies and plans, based on a catchment-level approach, to respect the water needs and rights of current and future water users and the environment. Most companies mention requirements to consult with potentially-affected water users in the process of developing their strategies, although evidence is largely limited to isolated examples and case studies. Only a limited number of companies show evidence they track the implementation of these water stewardship strategies.

Almost all companies track and publicly disclose some information on their efforts to reduce the water consumption of their operations, and approximately one-third of companies show their performance against targets they have set. Evidence of audits or reviews of the effectiveness of their efforts is more limited and only one-quarter of companies can show evidence they take some action to improve their effectiveness at reducing water consumption in response to these reviews.

Almost half of the companies show at least some evidence that they track and report on water quality in and around their operations, although the data provided is often very limited. This data is generally not compared against targets or reported over successive time periods. Only a handful of companies show evidence of having conducted performance reviews, and there is hardly any evidence that the reviews led to responsive actions to improve companies’ management of water quality.

About half of the companies provide (only limited) information on their efforts to assess the impacts of noise and vibration generated by their activities. Very few companies report having assessed these impacts on local communities and there is no evidence of the assessments, or any subsequent strategies and plans to limit noise and vibration, considering impacts on nearby structures or wildlife. Less than a quarter of the companies provide any evidence that they engage with affected communities when developing strategies to limit these impacts, and this evidence is usually limited to examples from individual mine sites, rather than company-wide systems.

Nearly half of the companies have publicly committed to not exploring or mining in World Heritage Sites and to respecting other protected cultural or natural heritage areas. A further quarter of companies provide some less formal statement that they respect protected areas. About one-quarter of companies state to some extent that they do not use riverine, lake or marine disposal of tailings (though only BHP and OCP Group can show a comprehensive and formal commitment on this issue). The number of companies that explicitly allow for some type of marine disposal is nearly as large as the number that publicly prohibit these tailings disposal methods. OCP Group is the only company formally committed to not engage in or support deep seabed mining.

Most companies track and publicly disclose their performance in protecting mining-affected biodiversity and ecosystems. The focus of these disclosures tends to be on land rehabilitation efforts, though in a few cases some limited data is also disclosed related to the endangered wildlife species affected. Little information is available on broader biodiversity protection measures and very few companies disclose information on setting and achieving targets related to biodiversity. Less than half of the companies show evidence of having recently conducted reviews or audits of the effectiveness of their biodiversity protection measures and only a very small number provide any indications that responsive action has been taken to improve their effectiveness.

While companies are increasingly putting systems in place to assess the impacts of climate change on their own operations, less than one-quarter of companies show any evidence that they consider how climate change can exacerbate the impacts of their operations on the environment. There is even less evidence of companies implementing or tracking measures to address these impacts.

While companies are increasingly putting systems in place to assess the impacts of climate change on their operations, only a limited number show any evidence that they consider how climate change can exacerbate the impacts of their operations on affected communities and workers. Only one-quarter of companies refer to strategies and plans to address these impacts. Only one company show evidence that suggests it tracks the implementation of these plans.

Almost all companies provide at least some evidence of tracking and disclosing data on their performance in reducing their emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). Most of the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reporting is over successive years; the companies that report on Scope 3 emissions typically only provide one year of data. The majority of companies provide some indication that they audit or review the effectiveness of their measures to reduce GHG emissions, though less than half provide information that suggests responsive action to improve the effectiveness of these measures is taken in response to those reviews. For many companies, their disclosures on GHG emissions come in the form of Carbon Disclosure Project reports.

Virtually all companies track and publicly disclose information on their performance in managing and reducing their energy consumption across operations, although often in less detail than their GHG emissions (see F.06.3). A small subset of companies go further and disclose both company targets and comprehensive tracking data against those targets. Over half of the companies provide at least some evidence that they review the effectiveness of their energy consumption reduction efforts, though fewer demonstrate that they have taken actions in response to those reviews.

Almost all companies provide at least some indication that they have systems in place to ensure their operations identify and assess the risks related to both their use of, and their operations’ production of, hazardous materials. Three-quarters of companies provide evidence that they have systems to develop strategies and plans to address these risks, and more than one-third of companies show some signs of tracking the implementation of these strategies and plans.