Sustainability Reporting

in the Mining Sector

Current Status and Future Trends
Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2020

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. The United Nations Environment Programme would appreciate receiving a copy of
any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever
without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning de-
limitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent
the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of
trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

UNEP promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities. This
publication is printed on 100% recycled paper,
using vegetable - based inks and other eco-
friendly practices. Our distribution policy aims to
reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint.
Sustainability Reporting
in the Mining Sector
Current Status and Future Trends
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................7

Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................9

Key Messages..............................................................................................................................10

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................11

Foreword - UNEP..........................................................................................................................14

Foreword - Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 (GoF47)..................................................................15

Introduction..................................................................................................................................16

Group of Friends of Paragraph 47................................................................................................................... 16

About this Report................................................................................................................................................ 16

Why Focus on the Mining Sector?................................................................................................................... 19

1. Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector.............................................................23

General State of Sustainability Reporting...................................................................................................... 24

Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector............................................................................................... 25

Key Drivers, Frameworks and Standards for Sustainability Reporting..................................................... 28

Challenges Associated with Sustainability Reporting of Mining Companies......................................... 33

Assurance of Sustainability Reporting ........................................................................................................... 36

2. Mineral Supply Chain Reporting / Responsible Mineral Sourcing............................................... 41

Mining Companies’ Supply Chain (Sustainable Procurement) Reporting .............................................. 42

Responsible Mineral Sourcing – Implications for Transparency in Mining ............................................ 45

3. Governments and Sustainability in the Mining Sector...............................................................53

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)................................................................................................ 54

EIAs as Part of the Government Approval Process for Mining Projects.................................................. 56

Sustainability Initiatives Collaborating with Governments – Examples of IGF and GRI ..................... 57

The EITI’s Growing Role in Enhancing Transparency of the Environmental Impact

of the Extractive Industries  ............................................................................................................................. 59

4. S
 ustainability Reporting through Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives (VSIs)
in the Mining Sector..................................................................................................................63

The role of VSIs in promoting transparency through information-sharing

and reporting in the mining sector ............................................................................................................... 64

Findings from the report Standards and the Extractive Economy ........................................................... 65

Critical Analysis of Sustainability Reporting and VSIs ................................................................................ 69

5
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

5. G
 overnment Initiatives to Enhance Sustainability and Reporting of the Mining Sector
– Examples from the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47............................................................71

South Africa.......................................................................................................................................................... 72

Colombia............................................................................................................................................................... 74

Switzerland........................................................................................................................................................... 75

6. Examples from Other Countries................................................................................................79

Canada.................................................................................................................................................................. 80

Mexico .................................................................................................................................................................. 81

India....................................................................................................................................................................... 82

China ..................................................................................................................................................................... 83

7. G
 overnments Supporting National Mining Associations – Innovative Approaches
to Advancing Sustainability......................................................................................................87

The Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining Program......................................... 88

Voluntary cooperation to promote sustainable mining in Finland............................................................ 89

8. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................93

9. Recommendations....................................................................................................................97

10. References...........................................................................................................................100

6
 List of Acronyms

List of Acronyms
Acronym Meaning
3TG tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold
ASI Aluminium Stewardship Initiative
ASM Artisanal and Small-scale Mining
ASX Australian Stock Exchange
BC Bettercoal
BMV Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (Mexican Stock Exchange)
BR Business Responsibility
CSC Cornerstone Standards Council
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EESG Economic, Environmental, Social and Governance
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
EPF Environmental Protection Fund
ESG Environmental, Social and Governance
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
ESTMA Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FM ARM Fairmined
FS Fair Stone
FT Fairtrade Gold and Silver
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG greenhouse gases
GoF47 Group of Friends of Paragraph 47
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
ICMM International Council on Mining and Metals
IFC International Finance Corporation
IGF Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development
IIRC International Integrated Reporting Council
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
IRMA Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance
JSE Johannesburg Stock Exchange
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LPRM Local Procurement Reporting Mechanism
LSM large-scale mining
MAC Mining Association of Canada

7
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Acronym Meaning
MNEs Multinational Enterprises
MPF Mining Policy Framework
NSC Natural Stone Council
ODC Open Data Charter
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OGD Open Government Data
PRI Principles for Responsible Investment
RBC Responsible Business Conduct
RGMPs Responsible Gold Mining Principles
RJC Responsible Jewellery Council
RMF Responsible Mining Foundation
RMI Responsible Mining Index
SASB Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
SBGA Swiss Better Gold Association
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise
SOE State-Owned Enterprise
TCFD Task-Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
TFT The Forest Trust
TSF Tailing Storage Facilities
TSM Towards Sustainable Mining
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
VSI Voluntary Sustainability Initiative
WGC World Gold Council
XF Xertifix

8
 Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments
Lead Author: Hanna Thorsteinsdottir, UNEP Consultant

Contributing Authors:
Ben Chalmers and Cynthia Waldmeier, Mining Association of Canada
Eero Yrjö-Koskinen, Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining
Laura Turley and Cristina Larrea, International Institute for Sustainable Development
Ines Schjolberg Marques and Olesia Tolochko, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
Benjamin Katz and Stephanie Venuti, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Project Management: Elisa Tonda, UNEP

We would like to thank he following government representatives for their valuable input to their respective
country chapters and support during the report’s development:

Martine Rohn-Brossard and Laura Platchkov, Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland
Edith Urrego and German Agudelo, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, Colombia
Devina Naidoo, Tshwanelo Leballo and Rhulani Baloyi, Department of Environment, Forest and Fisheries,
South Africa
Gabriela Milan, Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico

We would also like to thank the following experts for their support, input and advice during the report’s
conceptualization:

Deanna Kemp, Kathryn Sturman and Vlado Vivoda, Sustainable Minerals Institute of the University of
Queensland
Tina Jensen and Julien Parkhomenko, Global Reporting Initiative
Matthew Mark, John Mulligan, Peter Sinclair and Edward Bickham, World Gold Council
Jeff Geipel and Kyela de Weerdt, Mining Shared Value
Jasmine Taulu, Radha Patel, Chris Fleming and Garth Thomson, Government of British Colombia
Aimee Boulanger, Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance

Peer Reviewers:
Jennifer Rietbergen-McCracken, Responsible Mining Foundation
Lara Koritzke and Rebecca Burton Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance
Bettina Heller and Beatriz Carneiro, UNEP
Ekaterina Hardin, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
Daniela Fabel Glass and Olivier Marc Bovet, Federal State Secretariat of Economic Affairs, Switzerland
Susanna Fieber, Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland

UNEP and GoF47 gratefully acknowledges the financial contribution of the Federal Office for the Environment
of Switzerland to this publication.

9
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Key Messages
• The management of environmental and social aspects, and sustainability reporting of mining
companies is currently not meeting the expectations of interested stakeholders, notably
communities affected by mining operations and investors.

• In general, governments have not specifically targeted sustainability reporting of mining sector
but the sector often falls under wider policies, including regulations that address sustainability
reporting of large or publicly listed companies. Governments that have taken concrete steps to
address the sustainability and associated reporting of the sector include South Africa and Canada.

• Governments have an important role to play in enhancing the sustainability reporting of mining
companies operating in their jurisdictions, such as through policies or guidance on what
environmental and social aspects are most important in the local and national context and support
the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• The COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionally affecting vulnerable communities, including around

mining operations and disrupting supply chains. Mining companies can support the economies
of affected communities such as through local procurement (supports SDG 8), which can also
be beneficial in a situation such as COVID-19 that puts limits on the effectiveness of international
supply chains.

• Mining companies and governments can consider modern technologies available for real time
monitoring of social and environmental impact of mining operations. This can help in transferring
information from mining companies to the government, such as for SDG reporting, but also to
other stakeholders such as local communities. Open Data Principles are an emerging tool for
governments to adopt for enhancing and streamlining the sharing of information.

• There is increased focus on the environmental and social impacts of the wider mineral supply
chain, including the operations of trading companies. Several Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives
(VSIs) have been formed to enhance the sustainability and transparency of the different actors of
the mineral supply chain. Governments can consider using VSIs when designing relevant policies in
this area.

• Sustainability reporting of mining companies needs to further integrate the SDGs. Governments
have an important role to play to provide mining companies with the relevant information and data
relating to national SDG priorities and actions plans, to inform and focus the mining companies’
sustainability reporting.

• Governments can play a role in enhancing the link between Environmental (and social) Impact
Assessment (EIAs) and the information reported in sustainability reporting of mining companies.

• When evaluating the feasibility of mining projects, governments should consider, in an integrated
way, the economic, environmental and social impacts of mining projects. At present, economic
factors are often considered separately and final decisions fail to adequately weigh in environmental
and social aspects of a proposed mine.

10
 Executive Summary

Executive Summary
Metals and minerals are at the core of human and economic development. Their use is expected to increase
substantially in the coming decades in light of a growing world population. Metals and minerals are also
essential for the clean energy transition to meet the urgent climate change challenge, such as for the
production of batteries for cars, solar panels and wind turbines. While the operations of the large-scale
mining sector are essential to maintain and increase economic development around the world the sector
also faces serious challenges related to its significant environmental and social impact. Environmental and
social impacts of the sector include greenhouse gas emissions, toxic waste that can negatively impact soil
and water quality, unsafe working conditions and negative impacts on vulnerable groups such as women
and indigenous people. The vulnerability of marginal groups, such as women working in artisanal and small-
scale mining have been further exacerbated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Frequent accidents of the sector have increased the pressure on large mining groups to improve the
management and transparency of their environmental and social impacts. A recent example is the tragic
collapse of the Brumadinho tailings dam in Brazil in January 2019, which led to 270 deaths and devastating
environmental damage. New mining projects, notably in resource-rich developing countries, are often
met with opposition by NGOs and local communities who fear the projects will not provide the economic
benefits to outweigh the associated risks to the health and wellbeing of the affected communities and
the environment. This prevailing negative reception by NGOs and local communities lends credence to
expressed fears and discontent owing to the material circumstances of communities where mining
extraction takes place, since there is often no inclusive and participatory mining development, resulting in
the erosion of mutual trust and livelihoods of affected communities.

Sustainability reporting is an important tool to transfer information on environmental, social, economic, as

well as governance, and performance measures from mining companies to their stakeholders. In addition
to supporting the implementation of a company’s sustainability strategy, sustainability reporting can enable
stakeholders of companies to monitor performance over time and identify where key risks and opportunities
for improvements lie. Large mining groups report on their sustainability performance for various reasons,
including to meet the requirements of national and EU regulations, respond to investor pressure, fulfil
requirements of stock exchanges, and to maintain and strengthen their reputation and social license to
operate. The current state of reporting of the mining sector has however been largely inadequate to meet the
various stakeholders’ information needs. An important challenge in achieving a higher level of environmental
and social performance of the mining sector, is the lack of a global common vision for the sector in terms
of what constitutes sustainable operations for mining, including Key Performance Indicators at the mine-
site level. A clearer framework for the sustainability of the sector could help in further standardizing and
improving sustainability reporting of mining companies, and could inform relevant government policies on
reporting and related initiatives.

Although governments have been key drivers of corporate sustainability reporting through policies, CSR
action plans and collaborative initiatives with businesses, they have generally not targeted their policies
and initiatives specifically at the mining companies operating in their jurisdictions. South Africa and Canada
are examples of an exception to this trend, as they have been proactive in specifically targeting the mining
sector through various policy instruments and initiatives, which consider the particular context of the
sector in their countries. As outlined through the country examples in this report, there are many ways
of designing policies and initiatives to enhance the transparency of the mining sector but it is clear that
further efforts at the government level are needed. It is essential that governments consider their larger
agendas for sustainable development, and the particular challenges faced by the mining companies in
their countries when defining the way forward to enhance the sector’s sustainability and transparency.
Government engagement with mining companies and other relevant stakeholders is also an important
element for success.

11
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

One common issue with the sustainability reporting of the large mining groups, is that they generally focus
their reporting at the corporate level (as required by the most commonly used reporting framework of the
sector, the GRI Standards) and do not disclose more granular information at the level of the mines that
they operate. In an effort to address this challenge, the focus on sustainability performance and reporting
at the mine-site level is being encouraged and supported by several national and international initiatives,
including the Responsible Mining Foundation, the Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable
Mining program, the International Council for Mining and Metals and the Initiative for Responsible Mining
Assurance. These initiatives, and others, also place an increasing focus on the third-party verification
(assurance) of the sustainability performance disclosure published by mining companies, as assurance is
imperative to enhance the credibility of the disclosed information vis a vis their stakeholders.

An increasing focus on the sustainability performance of mining companies at the mine-site level is
also being driven by demands from production companies that seek to ensure that the material they
use is responsibly sourced. This increasing interest in sustainability issues by (mainly large) production
companies has been triggered by the growing sustainability awareness of consumers who want to limit
the environmental and social impacts of the products they buy and use. This is generally referred to as
‘responsible mineral sourcing’. Various Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives (VSIs) have been established in
recent years to help increase the understanding and visibility of the sustainability impacts throughout the
complex mineral supply chain. These initiatives are requiring enhanced information sharing of the different
actors of the supply chain, including mining companies at which level the sustainability risks are most
elevated. Other key parts of the supply chain, where enhanced transparency is needed, include smelters and
refiners as well as traders of minerals and metals. Governments have an important role to play in enhancing
the sustainability and transparency in the mineral supply chain, for example through requirements for
increased transparency in the area of trading of minerals and metals. Governments can also engage with
VSIs operating in their jurisdictions to advance solutions to mutual challenges, such as through collaborative
initiatives and reference to VSIs in policies.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the world’s governments in 2015 provide a unique
opportunity and context for collaboration between governments and the mining sector to establish what
environmental and social challenges are most essential for the companies to focus on in their sustainability
strategies, management and reporting. The activity of mining relates to all of the 17 SDGs to different
extents. Examples of particularly relevant SDGs include SDG 8 on decent work and economic growth and
SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production. Although reporting on the SDGs is in the hands of
governments, businesses such as mining companies have a key role to play in enhancing their sustainability
performance to minimize their negative impacts and maximizing their contribution to achieving the SDGs.

In addition, governments have an opportunity to make better use of Environmental Impact Assessments
(EIAs) to inform what areas should be of key focus in the reporting of mining companies at the level of the
mine-site. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), works with governments around the world
to enhance the transparency of the extractives sector, including mining companies. The EITI reporting by
governments, which is required by the EITI Standard, is primarily focused on the transparency of payments
from extractive (such as mining) companies to the government but has increasingly started to include
information related to environmental issues. This interesting development may bring future opportunities
for enhanced transparency and collaboration between governments and mining companies that may help
enhance the link between EIAs and sustainability reporting at the mine-site level.

One of the challenges facing large mining groups is identifying how to effectively communicate their
performance to different stakeholders, across several countries. For it to be of use to stakeholders such
as host-communities, NGOs and investors, the reporting needs to move from the global corporate level to
a more granular, mine-site level. Companies need to adapt their communication to their many stakeholder
groups and pay particular attention to the needs of host-communities. Sudden and unpredictable events
such as the COVID-19 pandemic further enhance the need for targeted and frequent communication,
including between a mining company and its suppliers and customers. Modern technology now allows
for real time monitoring of environmental and social indicators, which could be an option for some mining

12
 Executive Summary

companies. Through this technology community members could for example monitor the level of water and
air quality at the mine-site and the information could also be used to fulfill eventual government reporting
requirements in areas such as greenhouse gas emissions or waste management.

Another interesting area that is receiving attention from mining companies and governments alike is
local procurement. Pursuing local procurement can bring about economic benefits for host-communities,
through supporting local businesses which also creates jobs. Having a strong local supplier base may
also help in facing situations where disruptions in international supply chains occur for example in the
event of a pandemic such as COVID-19. The initiative Mining Shared Value has issued a specific reporting
guidance for local procurement of mining companies, the Mining Local Procurement Reporting Mechanism
(LPRM). The LPRM outlines the key disclosures that mining companies should include in their reporting
on local procurement and it is also meant as a tool for governments and other stakeholders for which the
enhancement of local procurement is important.

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the status of sustainability reporting in the large-scale
mining sector with a specific focus on how governments can further support the efforts of the sector
in advancing their sustainability practices and reporting. The report includes a number of examples of
government initiatives, both in countries of the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 as well as other countries
where the mining industry is well established. The report offers recommendations to governments on how
to further support the sustainability performance of the mining companies operating in their jurisdictions
and more particularly how to support their sustainability reporting efforts. Other recommendations are also
addressed to mining companies and other stakeholders.

13
 Foreword - UNEP

Foreword - UNEP
At the time of writing, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are still unfolding and the economic, social and
environmental impacts are yet to be fully realized. Although the years to come will bring challenges and
difficulties, notably for vulnerable communities, there will also be new opportunities for governments to “build
back better” and strengthen the protection of the health of their citizens and the environment. While addressing
the immediate challenges of COVID-19 governments must also continue their urgent efforts to address climate
change and, more broadly, their work to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Further to being at the center of human and economic development, minerals and metals are key components
of clean energy technologies. The importance of the mining sector to the energy transition and the need for
advancing the sector’s environmental responsibility and transparency is highlighted in the resolution on Mineral
Resource Governance adopted at the 4th session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-4). In this context,
UNEP has an important role to play in supporting member states in advancing the sustainability of the mining
sector and its contribution to meeting the SDGs.

The mining sector and the mineral supply chain have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The
current crisis could however act as an unprecedented opportunity to achieve the objective of turning the mining
sector into an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable sector; and of transforming it into an engine
for sustainable development. Including the mining sector in the government recovery or “build back better” plans
will be fundamental to frame its pathway to advancing the global sustainability agenda. In recovering from the
shock of the crisis, mining companies may need to rethink their supply chains, strengthen their involvement with
local economies and enhance their resilience to meet future challenges in the areas of health and safety and
environmental management. Such actions could also help make the sector more attractive to the investment
and finance communities given the growing importance of sustainable investments and financing globally.

Sustainability reporting is an important tool for gradually improving the management of the sustainability
impacts of mining companies and their transparency vis-a-vis stakeholders. When effectively applied the process
of reporting allows for greater visibility of key sustainability impacts and insight into a company’s performance
against set targets. However, sustainability reporting of globally operating mining companies is generally not
meeting the expectations of their stakeholders. Amongst shortcomings of their reporting is the lack of details on
the sustainability impacts of mining projects on local communities and the absence of contextual information,
such as how the reported data links to national sustainability priorities and plans for the SDGs.

Governments are well positioned to provide such context and can assist mining companies in identifying where
risks and opportunities lie in terms of national sustainability, including SDG, priorities. In addition, opportunities for
enhancing the monitoring and reporting of sustainability performance of the sector lie in areas such as adopting
new technologies for real-time monitoring of environmental and social impacts. A collaborative effort between
mining companies, governments and communities will be an important success factor in adapting to current
and emerging needs for enhanced sustainability, accountability and transparency in the post-COVID-19 era.

This publication is developed by UNEP, through its Extractives Hub, with the support of the Group of Friends
of Paragraph 47, a consortium of governments promoting effective corporate sustainability reporting. The
publication provides recommendations and inspiring examples to support and guide governments in enhancing
sustainability reporting of mining companies. In particular, the publication supports governments in their efforts
concerning SDG 12 on Responsible Consumption and Production and the implementation and follow up of the
UNEA-4 resolution on Mineral Resource Governance.

Ligia Noronha
Director Economy Division
UNEP

14
 Foreword - Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 (GoF47)

Foreword - Group of Friends of

Paragraph 47 (GoF47)
On behalf of the GoF47 allow me to use this opportunity to extend our sincere condolences to those who
have lost loved ones due to the pandemic and to express solidarity with countries who are fighting COVID-19.

What is now termed the “Great Reset” for humanity, challenges us to rethink how we make decisions and
how to develop and apply technology in new and meaningful ways for the benefit of all. This new way
of working should be guided by insight and designed to encourage resilience, workplace innovation and
inclusiveness, while ensuring environmental sustainability.

This pandemic comes at a critical moment in the Decade of Action and Delivery to implement the Sustainable
Development Goals. COVID-19 provides us with the chance to move towards the world that the SDGs aim
to create, putting the world on a healthier trajectory, one that is driven by new forms of productivity, greener
and more sustainable consumption and production patterns, more resilient supply chains, more flexible
working arrangements with less environmental impacts. Success depends on global collaboration between
governments, business, civil society and all citizens.

The member governments of GoF47 share the common vision that corporate transparency and accountability
are key elements of a well-functioning market economy. Furthermore, sustainability reporting is a key way
to assume corporate responsibility and to demonstrate a company’s long-term economic value.

The mining sector plays an important part in combating climate change, as far greater amounts of metals
will be required for scaling up renewable energy technologies and infrastructure. Although mining is an
economic driver in many countries, and modern society is highly dependent upon mined materials, the
socio-economic benefits are not always fully derived. Mining companies, communities and governments
need to work together to recognize the impact of sustainable mining practices can have on the environment
and livelihoods. This publication Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector – Current Status and Future
Trends, is hence opportune and very relevant.

As we seek a world free from the devastations of the global pandemic, we must commit to recover better by
using this opportunity to build a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient world for future generations. The
GoF47 strongly believes that sustainability reporting allows for this vision by creating value for all.

The recommendations of this report for policy makers, mining companies, regulators and stakeholders,
speak to the holistic approach in assessing sustainability in the mining sector. This publication offers a
unique perspective into the sector, showcasing innovative approaches and benchmarking initiatives with
specific country examples, while noting the associated challenges and trends of sustainability reporting
within the sector.

Devina Naidoo
Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa
Member Government to the GoF47

15
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Introduction
Group of Friends of Paragraph 47
The Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 (GoF47) is a government-led initiative that was formed by Brazil,
Denmark, France and South Africa in 2012 during the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (Rio +20) following the acknowledgement of the importance of corporate sustainability
reporting in Paragraph 47 of the Conference outcome document ‘The Future We Want’. Other countries
have joined the initiative in recent years, including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Norway and Switzerland. The
group shares experiences and methods to promote sustainability reporting. UNEP supports the GoF47 in a
Secretariat capacity.

The goals of the GoF47 are the following:

• To promote the exchange of experience on sustainability reporting policies and initiatives with a
view to enhancing their effectiveness, leading to more widespread and higher quality sustainability
reporting.

• To increase the number of governments with policies or initiatives that promote corporate
sustainability reporting.

• To maintain and promote discussions on sustainability reporting in relevant international fora.

• To engage with strategic stakeholders, recognizing that the promotion of sustainability reporting is
a multi-stakeholder effort. [1]

Box 1: Related reports by UNEP and GoF47:

• Sustainability Reporting in the Financial Sector: A Governmental Approach (2017) [2]

• Evaluating National Policies on Sustainability Reporting (2015) [3]

About this Report

This report is a joint initiative of the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 and UNEP.

Scope and context

The report looks into the context and state of sustainability reporting of the mining and metals sector. More
specifically, the report focuses on the different measures taken by governments to promote enhanced
sustainability reporting practices of the sector. Specific emphasis has been put on providing an overview of
policies in the area of sustainability reporting in the countries of the GoF47, that have significant mining and
metals operations. In the selection of other country examples an effort was made to balance geographical
representation, to the extent possible.

Primary attention is given to material and policies that concern industrial-scale mining and metals activities.
The report also looks into sustainability reporting in the context of responsible sourcing in the larger mineral
supply chain and discusses the importance of due diligence of actors in the supply chain, such as traders,
smelters and refiners, for transparency on the origins of minerals and metals. The report only marginally
discusses artisanal and small-scale mining in the context of the responsible sourcing of minerals and metals.

16
 Introduction

The findings and recommendations of this report feed into the follow-up to resolutions approved by member
states at the fourth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-4), which took place in March
2019. In particular, the report contributes to the UNEA-4 resolution 19 on “Mineral Resource Governance”.
While acknowledging the severity of the environmental impacts of the mining and metals sector the resolution
also highlights the sector’s importance for sustainable development. As part of the resolution, UNEP is asked
to “collect information on sustainable practices, identify knowledge gaps and options for implementation
strategies, and undertake an overview of existing assessments of different governance initiatives and
approaches relating to sustainable management of metal and mineral resources, and report thereon to the
United Nations Environment Assembly at its fifth session.” [4]

The report also supports the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development more generally by discussing
corporate sustainability reporting as a tool to gain oversight of progress on the UN Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). Businesses has a key role to play in achieving the goals by 2030 but the reporting on the progress
towards achieving the goals is in the hands of governments. The report puts a focus on how mining and
metals companies have started reporting on the SDGs and how this reporting could be further strengthened
and supported by governments to enhance progress on the goals at the national level, and particularly SDG
12 on responsible consumption and production and the associated target 12.6 on “encouraging companies,
especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable and to integrate sustainability information
into their reporting cycle.” [5]

Throughout the report, focus is placed on the subject of sustainability reporting but it is emphasized that
the ultimate goal of the reporting should be gradual improvements of environmental, social and governance
performance. Sustainability reporting can be an effective tool for communicating companies’ performance in
these areas to stakeholders.

It is noted that this report has benefited from valuable contributions of the organizations listed in the
acknowledgement section. The coverage of their respective standards, guidance and initiatives may therefore
be more prominent than of others that may nevertheless be of similar relevance for advancing sustainability
and transparency of the mining sector.

Target audience
The target audience of the report is primarily government authorities that are responsible for regulating
the mining and metals companies operating in their countries. The report may also be of interest to public
institutions that wish to support and encourage the sustainability reporting efforts of the mining and metals
sector as well as representatives of Civil Society Organizations, businesses and related stakeholders.

Note on terminology
The report uses the terms ‘mining’ or ‘mining and metals’ interchangeably and applies those terms to
companies in the large-scale mining sector, as well as to the sector as a whole. Primary focus is put on
companies that are involved in the upstream activities of exploration and mining.

The term ‘mineral supply (value) chain’ is used for the process of bringing raw minerals to the consumer
market involving multiple actors. The process generally includes the extraction, transport, handling, trading,
processing, smelting, refining, manufacturing and sale of end product. [6]

The terms ‘corporate sustainability reporting’ and ‘sustainability reporting’ are used as a reference to non-
financial reporting, or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting of companies, that covers economic,
environmental and social, including human rights, issues. The term ESG (Environmental, Social and
Governance) reporting is also used, notably when discussing sustainability reporting that targets investors.
It is important to note that sustainability reporting can take the form of an independent sustainability
report but can also be embedded in an annual or integrated report, or presented through other corporate
communication means, such as corporate websites.

17
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Overview of structure and content

The first chapter of the report starts with a brief overview of the mining and metals sector and outlines the key
environmental and social challenges the sector is facing, while demand for minerals and metals continues to
grow. The contribution of the mining sector to advancing sustainable development is then explored, notably via
its contribution to the global renewable energy transition. The chapter then moves to the area of sustainability
reporting and reporting trends in the mining as well as exploring the key drivers of reporting, core challenges
and the important role of third-party verification (assurance) in advancing reporting quality.

The second chapter places a specific focus on the area of sustainability reporting in the mineral supply chain,
in the context of responsible mineral sourcing. The chapter has two core parts, the first part looks into reporting
in the (upstream) supply chain of mining companies, i.e. sustainable procurement. The second and more
extensive part of the chapter looks into sustainability initiatives and reporting in the wider mineral supply chain.
Specific attention is given to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chain of Minerals from
Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas and its inclusion in US and EU regulations. The chapter then provides
a brief introduction to the role of Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives (VSIs) in advancing responsible mineral
sourcing. The chapter finally briefly explores the importance of increased transparency of trading companies
to allow for a clearer visibility of sustainability throughout the mineral supply chain.

The third chapter specifically looks into the role of governments in enhancing sustainability and transparency
of the mining sector. The chapter provides an overview of the role of Environmental Impact Assessments
in the approval process for mining projects as well as the importance of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals in enhancing corporate reporting on the environmental and social impacts of mining operations. The
chapter then moves to discuss the enhanced role of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in
advancing transparency on the environmental impact of the mining sector. This final section of the chapter is
a contribution by the EITI.

Chapter four of the report is dedicated to the role of VSIs in enhancing sustainability reporting of the mining
sector. This chapter is a contribution from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The
chapter explores the sustainability reporting aspect of VSIs and the interaction between VSIs and government
policies in the mining sector. The chapter outlines how governments can use VSIs to enhance transparency of
the mining companies operating in their countries.

Chapter five and six are focused on examples of government initiatives to enhance reporting of mining companies,
both from countries of the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 (Chapter 5) as well as others (Chapter 6).

Chapter seven is dedicated to the interaction between government strategy and national mining industry
associations in Canada and Finland with a focus on the role of the Mining Association of Canada’s Towards
Sustainable Mining program in advancing sustainability and reporting of the mining sector. The Mining
Association of Canada and the Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining contributed their respective sections
of this chapter.

Finally, chapter eight and nine include conclusions of the report as well as recommendations, notably for
governments that wish to advance the sustainability reporting of mining companies operating in their countries
through policies or other initiatives or partnerships, but also for mining companies and other stakeholder
groups.

Amongst the questions this report aims to address are the following:

• What has been the role of governments in advancing sustainability reporting in the mining sector?

• Which are the key challenges to enhancing the quality of sustainability reporting of mining
companies and how can these challenges be addressed by governments?

• How have VSIs guided the reporting of mining companies and how have they been used as tools by
governments to promote more effective sustainability reporting?

18
 Introduction

• How are the UN Sustainable Development Goals influencing sustainability reporting of the mining
sector and how can the goals be used by governments to guide the sustainability reporting
strategies of mining companies?

Why Focus on the Mining Sector?

Growing demand for minerals and metals
As the world population and the associated economic activities continue to grow, so does the demand for
extracted materials. From 1970 to 2017, the annual global extraction of materials tripled [7] and the global
use of materials is expected to more than double from 79 Gt in 2011 to 167 Gt in 2060. [8] Minerals that are
non-metallic, such as construction material, e.g. sand and gravel, represent more than half of the total use
of materials by weight and their use is expected to grow rapidly in the coming years (from 35 Gt in 2011 to
82 Gt in 2060). [8]
Domestic Extraction
100 000

90000

80000

70000

60000
million tonnes

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Biomass Fossil fuels Metal ores Non metallic minerals

Figure 1: Global Material Extraction 1970-2017 [7]

The switch to a low carbon economy as agreed by UN member states in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement
will require extensive amounts of metals for enabling renewable energy technologies. Most notably, metals
will be needed for electric storage batteries (e.g. for electric cars) which require aluminum, cobalt, iron,
lead, lithium, manganese and nickel but also for other relevant technologies, including those used for the
production of wind turbines and solar panels. [9] Far greater amounts of metals are needed for clean energy
production than the traditional energy production from fossil fuels. Although the COVID-19 pandemic is
slowing down the growth in production of renewable energy infrastructure in the short-term, growth in the
renewables sector is expected to rebound in 2021. [10]

The unfolding 4th industrial revolution, which is likely to be advanced with the COVID-19 crisis (e.g. the
increasing uptake of technology for virtual meetings and other tools used to facilitate remote work), will
further intensify the demand for metals for automation of processes, including for robots and datacenters.

Environmental and social impacts of mining

When considering the different environmental and social impacts and challenges associated with mining
activities it is important to note that these impacts differ between large-scale mining (LSM), which is the
key focus of this report, and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). ASM, which is generally labor intensive
and poorly mechanized, is recognized as an important source of revenue for 40 million people across 80
countries. [11] It is estimated that ASM accounts for 15-20% of global non-fuel mineral production. [11]

Although generally small in scale, the environmental and social challenges associated with ASM are often
greater than in LSM due to the lack of management processes for environmental and social issues and

19
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

the fact that ASM is rarely integrated into laws and regulations. [12] The COVID-19 pandemic is having a
disproportionate impact on ASM miners and their communities that are even more vulnerable post-pandemic
than they were prior to the crisis due to factors such as low commodity prices, risks of contracting the virus
and government restrictions which combined are putting their livelihoods and wellbeing at risk. [13]

The activity of mining of minerals and metals can have a positive impact on the host countries such as in
the form of royalties and taxes paid to governments, direct and indirect employment for the population and
opportunities for local suppliers. In fact, the most important factor in benefit distribution for communities
and governments is the procurement by mines, notably in developing countries. [14]

However, mining and mineral extraction frequently comes at a high environmental and social cost.
Environmental impacts often associated with the mining process include water and soil contamination,
soil erosion, loss of biodiversity and adverse impacts of climate change due to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The process of mining also includes large amount of waste materials or ‘tailings’ that can cause
severe environmental damage if not handled appropriately by mining companies.

The issue of safely storing tailings is comprehensively covered in the UNEP/GRID-Arendal report of 2017
Mine Tailing Storage: Safety is no Accident. The report highlights that tailings dam accidents in the past
could have be avoided with better safety management practices and notes that the challenge of safely
storing mine waste is growing in complexity and scale. The volume of tailings is increasing with lower ore
grades and more variable and intense weather events expected with climate change can further increase
risks of dam failure. [15]

Many of the untapped minerals and metal resources are located in developing countries. A number of
these countries suffer from unstable political systems, governance issues including corruption, widespread
poverty as well as weak legal frameworks for environmental and human rights issues, which are often
ineffectively applied. Rather than providing economic and development benefits, abundance of minerals in
developing countries can be associated with authoritarianism and poverty. This paradox is often referred
to as “the resource curse”. [16] The local communities living in the vicinity of large-scale mines do not
always reap benefits from the mining operations but rather the companies operating the mines and their
shareholders. Other potential negative social impacts include violence, escalation of gender inequalities
and child labour (child labour is of a particular concern in ASM).

Although important progress in improving the safety of mine workers has been made, the level of injuries
and fatalities in the mining sector still remains high. In addition, many injuries and deaths associated with
mining remain undisclosed due to different reporting regulations in mining countries and varying corporate
reporting practices. [17] A recent example of the dangerous nature of the mining sector is the Brumadinho
tailings dam collapse in Brazil in January 2019, which resulted in the death of 270 people and led to severe
environmental damage. [18]

The mining sector and sustainable development

The mining and metals sector is particularly interesting in the context of sustainable development. As
outlined earlier in this chapter, the sector plays an important part in combating climate change as essential
materials for technical solutions, such as batteries in electric cars and the material of solar panels (which
include rare earth metals), depend on the extraction of minerals. However, mining operations also often
have a negative impact on the environment and host-communities. In Latin America, for example, frequent
community oppositions to new mining projects are causing unrest and conflicts and pose a key challenge
for global mining groups operating in the region. [19]

It is relevant to look briefly into the formalization of the sustainable development concept in the context of
the mining sector at the turn of the millennium. From the mid-1990s to early 2000s the mining and metals
sector was facing enormous pressure to improve its environmental and social performance and defend its
“social license to operate”, which is in essence the level of acceptance or approval by local communities
and stakeholders of companies, and their operations. [20] The gains of mining were often not reaching

20
 Introduction

local communities in part due to corruption and poor governance of the mining sector at the time. There
were also wide concerns about alleged human rights abuses associated with mining projects. To respond
to these concerns and to defend their social license to operate, nine mining companies formed the Global
Mining Initiative, which “sought internal reform, a review of the various association they belonged to and
a rigorous study of the societal issues their industry had to face”. [21] Following extensive research12 and
dialogue, involving the International Institute for Environment and Development and the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, the International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM) was formed
in 2001. [21] [22]

Among the core objectives of the ICMM at the outset, as outlined in the ICMM Toronto Declaration [23],
was enhancing the mining sector’s contribution to social and economic development, putting emphasis
on respecting communities and human rights, as well as accepting the environmental stewardship
responsibilities for their mines. The declaration highlights that accountability, transparency and credible
reporting are essential elements in enhancing the sector’s contribution to sustainable development.
The establishment of the ICMM was an important milestone for integrating and formalizing sustainable
development factors into the operations of large mining and metals groups, including enhancing the
transparency of their environmental and social impact through sustainability reporting. However, as outlined
in this report, the level of transparency of mining companies on their sustainability performance, as well
as the actual performance in managing their environmental and social impact, has been insufficient to the
meet stakeholder expectations.

The various stakeholder groups of mining companies have therefore continued to push for improvements
in the sustainability performance of the mining sector. Over the last two decades, several sustainability
initiatives including reporting frameworks have been established, some of which including specific guidance
for sustainability reporting of mining companies (see Chapter 1). A number of voluntary sustainability
initiatives (VSIs) have also been founded, targeting different parts or the whole of the mineral supply chain,
notably in response to civil society and community pressure as well as a growing customer demand for
responsibly produced products (see chapters 2 and 4).

The growing role of governments in enhancing sustainable development of the mining sector

The SDGs adopted by governments in 2015 provide an opportunity for the mining sector to advance its
efforts of contributing to sustainable development and limiting the negative impact on communities and
the environment. The SDGs bring various possibilities for collaboration, both within the business sector
as well as between stakeholder groups, such as businesses and governments. The SDGs in the context of
mining, and the benefits of a collaborative effort between governments and businesses for achieving the
goals, is discussed further in Chapter 3.

As noted above, a large part of the efforts towards enhancing the sustainability of the mining sector has
been initiated voluntarily by mining companies themselves. However, as further outlined in this report, the
most important push for improvements of the environmental and social performance of the mining sector
has come from governments, including through international and national sustainability reporting regulations
which apply to the sector. The report Beyond Voluntarism [24] highlights the growing tendency of governments
being more assertive in their relations with companies in the mining and oil and gas sectors. While the report
focuses mainly on the role of governments in social investments in these sectors, it points out that this has
been a wider trend in other areas within corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Reasons for this
increased assertiveness of governments include general pressure to respond to rising societal expectations
and reduced community support for mining and oil and gas projects in recent years. [24]

To meet the urgent global challenges facing the world today, further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic,
governments have a key role to play to guide and direct the mining companies operating in their countries
towards more sustainable practices that will contribute to attaining the SDGs by 2030.

1 Notably through the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) project.

21
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
 xxxx

shutterstock/CrizzyStudio

SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING –
FOCUS ON THE MINING SECTOR
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

This chapter provides an overview of sustainability reporting in the mining sector. To provide for a more
global context, the first section of the chapter looks more broadly into the field of corporate sustainability
reporting and introduces some of its current challenges. Further attention is then given to sustainability
reporting of the mining sector, including reporting trends and context, the key reported issues, as well as the
most relevant drivers for reporting of the mining sector and key reporting frameworks and standards that
are used by the sector. A specific focus is then placed on the various challenges associated with obtaining
meaningful sustainability disclosures from mining companies and the importance of third-party verification
of sustainability reporting of the sector.

General State of Sustainability Reporting

Around 93% of the world’s 250 largest companies (by revenue), and 75% of the world’s largest 100 companies
across 49 countries, disclose information on their environmental and social performance, with a majority
of reporting companies referring to the reporting framework of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). [25]
However, the quality of these reporting efforts vary widely between companies, as does the value of those
efforts to company stakeholders.

The Alliance for Corporate Transparency issued a report in February 2020 on the analysis of sustainability
reporting of 1,000 European companies in the context of the 2014 EU Directive on non-financial disclosure.
The report concluded that “while there is a minority of companies providing comprehensive and reliable
sustainability-related information, at large quality and comparability of companies’ sustainability reporting
is not sufficient to understand their impacts, risks, or even their plans.” [26] Investors are increasingly
demanding sustainability information to inform their investment decisions [27], however, according to the
2018 Responsible Investing Survey investors feel that both the quantity and the quality of sustainability
reporting is unsatisfactory. [28]

Sustainability reporting of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) is much less common than in
larger companies in part due to the fact that SMEs are generally not targeted by reporting regulations or by
investor or shareholders’ requirements. SMEs also often lack the resources for the work needed to gather
data and other tasks associated with sustainability reporting. The practice of sustainability reporting of
SMEs is however expected to grow in coming years, notably in response to growing stakeholder demand.
For example, as larger companies extend their sustainability disclosures to include the impact of their
supply chains, (including the responsible sourcing of minerals) the pressure for SME reporting grows,
as many companies in global supply chains are SMEs. Increased transparency of SMEs can also create
new opportunities in the growing market for responsible products or public procurement. [29] These
opportunities are relevant in business to business (B2B) relationships, business to consumer relationship
(B2C) and business to government (B2G) relationships.

One of the challenges for effective corporate sustainability reporting are the numerous and diverse reporting
frameworks, standards and initiatives that have emerged in recent years. [30] Reporting frameworks target
different audiences and have varied approaches to key reporting principles, notably relating to the materiality
principle. [31] For example, organizations such as GRI, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
(SASB) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) have different guidance and approaches
to how to define what issues are material and to be included in the reporting. This stems partially from the
fact that the reporting frameworks are designed for different stakeholders, for example SASB and IIRC are
primarily designed for the information needs of investors while GRI is intended for sustainability reporting
for all stakeholders of companies. Indeed, the varying needs of the different stakeholders makes it complex
for companies to target their reporting and communication of their sustainability performance.

There have also been concerns about the reported information being presented without the necessary
context that would allow for a meaningful conclusion on the company’s actual negative or positive impacts
and contribution to sustainable development. [32] This demand has grown following the adoption of the
SDGs by governments and stakeholder pressure, notably from investors, for more detailed information on

24
 Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector

how companies are addressing global challenges such as climate change and gender equality. Companies
are in turn increasingly integrating the SDGs into their reporting, although currently selectively and with little
consistency. [33] The challenges of sustainability reporting, with a focus on reporting of the mining sector,
are further discussed later in this chapter.

Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector

Overview of reporting trends and context
Sustainability reporting rates for the extractive sectors are elevated compared with other sectors, in response
to their large environmental and social footprint. This is in particular the case for large companies in the
oil and gas and mining and metals sectors. As stated in KPMG’s 2017 survey on corporate responsibility
reporting around 80% of the world’s largest companies in the extractive sectors publish information on
their sustainability performance. [25] However, consistent with the pattern in other sectors, the quality of
sustainability reporting in the mining sector is commonly considered inadequate and not up to stakeholder
expectations. [34]

In recent years, there has been increasing emphasis on openness, transparency, accountability and reporting
of the mining sector, supported by numerous international initiatives such as the EITI and GRI. However, more
emphasis has generally been put on financial transparency and accountability and less on the disclosure of
environmental and social and governance performance. [35] In some cases in collaboration with the EITI, a
number of governments have taken concrete steps to enhance the governance and financial transparency
of the mining sector. The pressure for enhanced ESG disclosures by mining companies has, however, been
rapidly growing, notably by investor-led initiatives, stock exchanges and independent organizations such as
the Responsible Mining Foundation. Pressure from manufactures, NGOs and consumers has also led to the
establishment of various VSIs that promote responsible mineral sourcing, including increased transparency
on the environmental and social impacts of mining.

Although most of the large international mining groups are now reporting on their environmental and
social performance, in line with established sustainability reporting frameworks, the overall quality of their
reporting remains poor as outlined in the Responsible Mining Index of 2020. [34] An important factor to
consider in this respect is that reporting frameworks generally do not set specific performance targets but
rather depict what environmental and social topics should be addressed and reported on. What is lacking
is a focus on improving performance on the sustainability related areas of key interest to the communities
affected by mining and other key stakeholder groups.

Sustainability reporting of mining companies also generally lacks information on the positive externalities
the company delivers at the local mine-site level, such as for supporting local economic development through
sourcing, which supports local businesses and leads to job creation. [36] This information is of key interest
to local communities affected by mining operations as well as the local government. The growing trend of
mining companies integrating the SDGs in their reporting, and underlying sustainability strategies, might
help in achieving a greater balance of reporting of positive and negative impacts that meet the different
stakeholder information needs and more generally help in assessing the mining sector’s contribution to
sustainable development. A precondition to the effective integration of the SDGs to a mining company’s
strategy and reporting is, however, to first undertake a comprehensive sustainability assessment of the
mining operations to understand the key positive and negative impacts to the mining operations in the
national and local community context.

Stakeholders increasingly require information on the environmental and social impacts of mining at the
mine-site level, and presented in a local context. There is limited value derived from reporting that sums up
results from numerous and geographically dispersed projects of large mining and metals groups, especially as
impacts may vary greatly depending on the location. For example, a key impact of the mining sector is water

25
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

consumption but the severity of the impact on water supply will depend on the context of water availability, i.e.
whether the mining operation takes place in an area experiencing water stress or has abundant water supply.
Organizations such as the Responsible Mining Foundation and industry initiatives, such as the Canadian
Towards Sustainable Mining program and the newly updated principles of the International Council for Mining
and Metals, are helping in addressing these concerns and promoting sustainability reporting at the mine-site
level as well as third-party verification to help enhance the credibility of the reported information.

Governments are well positioned to provide the appropriate guidance to mining companies on where reporting
should be focused to reflect the specific sustainability context, challenges and opportunities related to mining
and mineral development as well as eventual national plans to address the SDGs. For example, governments
can guide mining companies on what sustainability issues are of most importance in the national context as
well as in the context of a particular commodity. Although there are many common sustainability challenges
to mining operations of the different minerals and metals, the priorities and the appropriate performance
indicators differ as well as the guidance offered by VSIs. Special attention is given to the interaction of
governments and VSIs in Chapter 4.

Frequently reported environmental and social issues

When looking at key sustainability reporting frameworks and initiatives for the mining sector, there is some
consensus on the core environmental and social areas and topics that mining companies should generally
report on. However, the proposed indicators and reporting guidance vary between initiatives and depend in
part on the intended target audiences. For example, SASB’s Metals and Mining Sustainability Accounting
Standard is first and foremost intended for reporting for investors and therefore focuses on areas that are
considered to have a financial impact on a company’s operations whereas GRI aims to provide information for
all key stakeholder groups of companies.

It is important to note that the mining process for the different kinds of minerals and metals will involve specific
environmental and social considerations. For example, gold extraction is often associated with toxic mercury
emissions that can be harmful to human health. Table 1 gives an overview of some of the environmental and
social issues that are often included in sustainability reporting of large-scale mining companies.

26
 Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector

Environmental
Examples of Indicators
Impact

Impact on - Number/percentage of sites with biodiversity management plans Description of

biodiversity significant impacts on biodiversity
- Amount of land disturbed or rehabilitated
- Information on the use of biodiversity offsets
GHG Emissions - Amount of CO2e GHG emissions and mitigation measures
and Energy use - Energy consumption and reductions
Water - Amount of water withdrawal by source
Management - Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water
Waste and - Total weight of waste and disposal method
hazardous - Total number and type of significant spills
materials - Processes in place to manage risks associated with waste rock, tailings, sludges and
(tailings) other residues
management
- Amount of release of heavy metals/toxins into the local environment

Social Impact Examples of Indicators

Health and - Number of accidents/deaths

Safety - Information on training on health and safety management
Security / - Number/percentage of reserves in or near areas of conflict
Human Rights - Number/percentage of reserves in or near indigenous lands and engagement
and Rights of processes in place
Indigenous - Processes in place to prevent child or forced labor
Peoples
Impact on local - Number of operating sites where resettlement took place, number of households
communities resettled in each site and information on how their livelihoods were affected in the
and local process
community - Number/percentage of operations with local community engagement (including
engagement minority groups such as women), and/ or environmental/social impact assessments
- Number/percentage of operations with significant negative impacts on local
communities
- Proportion of spending on local suppliers
Table 1: Examples of environmental and social impacts reported by mining companies2

2 The table is indicative and is based on indicators of the mining reporting frameworks of SASB (Industry Standard for Metals and Mining), the
TSM program, the GRI Standards and Sector Supplements for Mining and Metals, available on [Link]
ResourceArchives/[Link] as well as the most commonly reported GRI disclosures by mining
companies as outlined in the GRI publication Defining What Matters (2016) available on: [Link]
[Link]
27
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

An example of an issue that seems to be receiving insufficient attention in the sustainability focus and
reporting of large-scale mining companies (and in reporting frameworks), is gender equality. It is estimated
that only around 10% of the workforce in the, traditionally male oriented, large-scale mining sector is female.
[37] Improving gender equality, for the benefit of national economies and local communities, is an area
where national governments can play a strong role. An example of government effort in this area is Chile’s
2012 national standard on “Gender equality and reconciliation of professional, family and personal life.”3
The national mining company of Chile, CODELCO, is one of the top performers in promoting gender diversity
in the RMI Index 2020. [38] In line with the government’s requirements, the company adopted a Gender
Diversity Strategy in 2015 associated with specific gender-related KPIs.

Key Drivers, Frameworks and Standards for

Sustainability Reporting
The mining sector has a large impact on several areas linked to sustainability, which has created pressure for
increased disclosures on the sector’s environmental and social impacts. This demand has intensified following
severe mining accidents in the past years. Drivers for sustainability reporting of the sector are various and their
relevance depends in part on national context. Reporting drivers may be combined in different ways within
countries and they are often interlinked. According to findings of the RMI Index of 2020: “Stronger-performing
and more transparent companies tend to be subject to specific requirements set by investors or producing
country or home country governments.” [34] National regulations and investor demands are among the key
drivers for sustainability reporting, discussed in this chapter.

It is noted that the reporting regulations discussed below are not only relevant for the mining sector but apply to
broader categories of companies such as large, public, or state-owned companies. Mining companies generally
fall under these categories and are therefore affected by the regulations.

International and national regulation

EU Directive on non-financial disclosure

The European Union (EU) Directive from 2014 on non-financial disclosure of companies with more than 500
employees applies to around 6000 companies across the EU. The directive mandates reporting on sustainability
related areas including environmental protection, respect for human rights and anti-corruption. [39] In 2017 the
European Commission published a non-binding guidance document to assist companies in applying the EU
Directive. [40]

In 2019 the EU added specific guidance on the disclosure of climate-risk as a supplement to the non-financial
disclosure directive. The supplement provides guidance for companies on how to report climate-related
information, including negative impacts of company actives on the climate, negative impacts on the company
due to climate change and climate related opportunities such as new products and services that can contribute to
climate change mitigation or adaptation. The EU recommends that companies use existing reporting standards
in the interest of comparability and cites relevant standards, including the standards of SASB, CDP4, the GRI as
well as the recommended disclosures of the Task-Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). [41]

In line with the goals of the European Green Deal announced by the European Commission at the end of 20195 a
review of the EU directive on non-financial disclosure of 2014 is planned in 2020 with the aim of improving non-
financial disclosures as a foundation for sustainable investments. As part of the review, stakeholder consultation
is taking place in the first half 2020, specifically targeting investors and NGOs who are key users of sustainability
disclosures.

3 NCh3262 (2012). For more information (in Spanish) see [Link]

4 Formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project
5 The European Green Deal, available on [Link] is a roadmap for making
the EU’s economy sustainable.

28
 Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector

National regulation and state-ownership of mining companies

The main driver for corporate sustainability reporting is government regulation, followed by provisions
set by financial market regulators. [42] There has been an impressive growth in provisions that concern
sustainability reporting in the last years as demonstrated in Table 2, taken from the 2020 Carrots and Sticks
report on sustainability reporting policy. In terms of organizations covered by the reporting provisions, the
most common are provisions that cover all companies, large or publicly listed companies. [42] There is
a growing trend towards sector specific reporting provisions and heavy industry (which includes mining
companies) is the sector that includes the most reporting provisions with focus on the sector grown
substantively in the last years. [42]

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Governmental Financial market Stock exchanges Business & industry Other,
agencies regulators bodies non-governmental

2016 2020

Figure 2: Number of sustainability reporting provisions issued by different issuer types [42]

The GRI Standards are the reporting framework that is most often referenced by policy makers. As total of
168 policies in 67 countries specifically reference or require use of the GRI Standards. [43] Chapters 5 and 6
provide examples of regulatory initiatives relating to sustainability reporting in countries where the mining
sector is well established.

In general, however, as concluded in a 2019 report from the Natural Resource Governance Institute, when
it comes to extractive industries such as mining and metals companies: “Governments have not generally
harnessed or coordinated the efforts of companies to promote more consistent measurement and reporting
of environmental and social impacts of extraction.” [44]

In some resource-rich countries governments manage its natural resources, including minerals and metals,
through State Owned Enterprises (SOEs). State ownership is particularly prevalent in the oil and gas sector but
SOEs are also frequently found in the metals and mining sector. For example, Chile’s state owned CODELCO
is the largest producer of copper in the world and Morocco’s state owned OCP group is a world leader in
the production of phosphates. [45] Many SOEs have made significant progress in sustainability reporting.
In some countries there are SOE guidelines or requirements for sustainability disclosure. Examples of these
countries include India, South Africa and Chile. Many large SOEs also disclose sustainability information at
their own initiative. [46]

29
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

NGO and community pressure driving increased transparency of

mining companies
Sustainability reporting of the mining sector has largely been initiated from the mining companies themselves,
in part as a management tool for reputation risk and eventually also to pre-empt stricter government
regulation. [47] According to a recent EY survey of the top 10 business risks and opportunities for the
industry in 2020, “license to operate” is the key industry risk for the second year in a row, as stakeholder
demands for increased social and environmental responsibility of the sector intensify. [48]

Local communities are often negatively affected by mining operations (e.g. they may be relocated, lose their
source of income and suffer degradation of water, soil or air quality). The law and governance of mining is
complex and the affected local communities are often not informed of their rights and the applicable laws
and do not know who to turn to for assistance and information. [49] Local and international NGOs have in
recent years fought to increase the level of mining companies’ adherence to environmental legislation, rule
of law, humans rights and other legislative, regulatory and governance prescripts which should enable the
mining sector to operate in an open, transparent and accountable manner, taking into account the interests
and needs of local communities.

As discussed in the introduction of this report, large international mining groups came together in 2001
through the ICMM and its principles with the aim of regaining their social license to operate by enhancing
their environmental and social performance and increase their transparency towards their stakeholders,
including local communities.

Stock exchanges requiring ESG information

Stock exchanges have played an important role in driving sustainability reporting of the mining and metals
sector, both through mandatory regulation as well as voluntary guidance. For example, the latest version
of the Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations of the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX),
issued in February 2019, references the importance of companies disclosing environmental and social
risks. [50] The update follows a growing investor demand for ESG information. Other stock exchanges
requiring ESG disclosures of listed companies include India, Brazil and South Africa.

Growing investor demand for sustainability information

Environmental, social and governance aspects are increasingly important factors in the decision-making
process of investors around the world, notably large institutional investors, as non-financial factors are
increasingly impacting the value of companies. [51] This development is related to the increased emphasis
on sustainability factors among many stock exchanges, as outlined above. An important tool that investors
use to push for enhances ESG performance of their investments is through proxy voting on ESG-related
shareholder resolutions, which may be associated with direct investor engagement with company
management on the issue of concern. This has been particularly common in the US where the support for
ESG-related resolutions has been growing steadily. According to research by Morningstar 29% of investor
shares voted favorably on ESG-related resolutions in 2019, compared to around 11% in 2004. [52]

30
 Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector

Box 2: Key reporting frameworks that target reporting on ESG for investors

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)’s sector reporting standards (2018) [53]

The Reporting framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013) [54]

Although investors generally look at ESG data at the corporate level the risks of mining companies will often
lie at the mine-site level. [55] Therefore, as the uptake of ESG investments likely continues to grow, it can be
expected that more emphasis will be put on the availability of ESG disclosures disaggregated at the mine-
site level in the future.

In October 2018 a number of large investors,6 representing more than 5 trillion USD in assets under
management, signed a petition pushing the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to design a
framework for companies to disclose more specific and higher quality ESG information than currently
required under SEC regulations. [56]

Investors are also using their own leverage to push for enhanced sustainability reporting of companies. For
example, in January 2020 the world’s largest asset management firm, BlackRock7 , asked all the companies
it invests in on behalf of their clients to disclose industry specific sustainability information in line with the
SASB standards as well as climate-related risks in line with the recommendations of the TCFD. [57]

Another recent example of investor pressure occurred in the aftermath of the devastating tailings dam failure
at the Brumadinho dam in Brazil on 25 January 2019, which led to 270 deaths. [18] Through the Investor
Mining and Tailings Safety Initiative, governed by the Church of England, investors representing more than
$13 trillion demanded 7268 extractive companies to enhance the disclosures on their management of
tailings storage facilities (TSF). The demand led to the collaboration of the ICMM, UNEP and the Principles
for Responsible Investment (PRI) to co-convene the Global Tailing Review, a process to define an industry
standard aimed at raising the bar in the management of TSFs. [58] The result of this process is the Global
Industry Standard on Tailings Management, published in August 2020. [59] The Standard includes six broad
topics, one of which is Public Disclosure and Access to Information.9

Interestingly, according to a recent research by McKinsey, the majority of investors (82%) are supportive
of legal mandates requiring companies to issue sustainability reports, [60] which implies the value and
materiality of sustainability information for informing investment decisions.

Key sustainability reporting frameworks and standards used by

mining companies
In demonstrating their sustainability performance mining companies often use voluntary sustainability
reporting frameworks. The key frameworks, guidelines and standards of core relevance to sustainability
reporting, and related due diligence processes, of mining companies are listed in Table 2.

6 Including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the UN Principles for Responsible Investment and top state financial
authorities from New York, Illinois, Connecticut and Oregon.
7 See overview of top-10 largest asset management companies on: [Link]
companies/
8 This was the first round of letter, others were added later, so the final number is higher.
9 The associated principle for this topic is “Principle 15: Publicly disclose and provide access to information about the tailings facility to support
public accountability.”

31
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM)

ICMM is an international organization of 27 mining and metals companies and 38 regional and
commodities associations. Amongst the aims of the ICMM is to strengthen the environmental and
social performance of the mining and metals industry and enhance mining’s contribution to society. [61]
ICMM Principle 10.3 requires ICMM members to “Report annually on economic, social and
environmental performance at the corporate level using the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards.”
[62]
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
The GRI Standards is the leading framework for corporate sustainability reporting of large companies.
In addition to the GRI Standards there is a special guidance document for companies involved in the
mining and metals sector, ‘GRI’s Mining and Metals Sector Disclosures’ document. [63] The performance
indicators in the Mining and Metals Sector Disclosures were mandatory in the previous GRI G4 Reporting
Guidelines but are not required under the GRI Standards. Their use is however still encouraged by GRI.
New sector standards for high impact sectors are currently in development, starting with oil, gas and coal
and agriculture and fishing sectors. [64] Mining has been identified as a priority 1 Sector for the GRI Sector
Program and development of a Standard is expected to commence in the near-term.10
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Metals and Mining Sustainability Accounting
Standard
The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) has developed 77 industry specific
sustainability reporting standards, published in 2018. [65] One of SASB’s standard is the Metals and
Mining Sustainability Accounting Standard, [66] which is undergoing a review in 2020 to ensure it fully
captures the risks associated with company management of tailings storage facilities. [67]

The Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining Program

The Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) program was founded by the Mining Association of Canada
(MAC) in 2004 to encourage sustainable mining practices of Canadian mining companies. MAC
members commit to a set of guiding principles and are required to report on their performance annually
through 30 environmental and social performance indicators. [68]
International Finance Corporation’s (IFC’s) Performance Standards on Social & Environmental
Sustainability
The eight IFC’s Performance standards (PS) concern environmental and social risk management
of projects, notably large (including mining) projects. PS 1 outlines the importance of integrated
environmental and social impact assessments, stakeholder engagement and management of
environmental and social performance throughout the life of the project. It also covers reporting
obligations at project level and encourages sustainability reporting of the company. PS 2-8 cover
specific environmental and social impact areas. The IFC Performance standards can be used by any
company and their use is a precondition for IFC financing. [69]
The Responsible Mining Index Framework of the Responsible Mining Foundation (RMF)
The Responsible Mining Index Framework of RMF sets out the core content of the Responsible Mining
Index (RMI). The framework provides a comprehensive reference of the major aspects of responsible
mining which is based on society expectations of large-scale mining companies. The framework
includes information on 43 topics and provides indicators and metrics that are used in the RMI
assessment to measure mining company policies and practices on these topics. [70]
The Reporting Framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)
The IIRC Reporting Framework assists organizations in reporting on their financial, as well as non-
financial performance, with an emphasis on how the organization creates value over time. The
Framework puts emphasis on value creation for all organization’s stakeholders, including employees,
customers, suppliers, local communities and policy-makers. [54] The IIRC Reporting Framework is
relevant for all business sectors, including the mining sector.

10 Information obtained from the GRI

32
 Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs), last revised in 2011 [71], and associated
Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) of 2018 [72] set out principles of
environmental and social due diligence and reporting. They are highly relevant to the mining sector due to
the sector’s dominance by MNEs. The OECD Guidelines for MNEs are backed by OECD governments and
outline government expectations to businesses on how to operate responsibly. [71] The OECD Guidelines
for MNEs are referenced in various other guidelines and reporting frameworks such as the GRI Standards.

Table 2: Key reporting frameworks, standards and initiatives relevant to sustainability reporting of the mining sector
The reporting frameworks and other sustainability initiatives included in Table 2 cover a broad range of
sustainability/ESG issues. There are other topic-specific standards and guidance that are relevant to
sustainability reporting and related due diligence processes of mining companies, such as the Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights [73], the manual Free Prior and Informed Consent: An indigenous
peoples’ right and a good practice for local communities [74] and the Mining Local Procurement Reporting
Mechanism. The broader sustainability reporting frameworks and standards will generally include various
references to topic-specific standards but mining companies may also opt to use topic-specific standards
directly in their sustainability reporting and related due diligence processes.

In addition to sustainability reporting frameworks and standards, a number of voluntary sustainability

initiatives (VSIs) focusing on increased transparency in the mineral supply chain have been initiated in recent
years. These VSIs have largely been established as a response to continued civil society criticism, growing
investor demands for non-financial (ESG) information, and to meet downstream consumers’ requirements
for sustainably sourced minerals for their own products (these include companies such as Samsung and
Microsoft). [75] Further information on the responsible sourcing of minerals and supply chain reporting,
including key VSIs, can be found in Chapter 2.

Challenges Associated with Sustainability

Reporting of Mining Companies
Global versus aggregated reporting
Policies for the management of environmental and social issues associated with mining operations are
generally established at the headquarter or parent company level of large mining groups. These policies
are, however, often not translated to local level operations. According to a 2017 study by the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on MNEs in ASEAN11 countries “less than 24% of all MNEs
were comprehensively translating sustainability policies and reporting practices from parent-company
operations into systematic practices at the affiliate level within ASEAN. This was particularly the case when
looking at the practices of identifying pertinent and locally relevant sustainability issues” [76] The study
suggests that the review of progress on the SDGs at the national and regional levels can assist in providing
clarity to MNEs on the most critical local sustainability issues and how they might address them.12

Focusing reporting on environmental and social issues at the local level is essential for portraying the
real positive and negative impacts of mining companies and the companies’ contribution to sustainable
development. Combining performance indicators from disperse geographical areas, on the other hand, may
result in inaccurate or irrelevant evaluation of sustainability performance [77] and hide risks that may be
associated with mining assets. Companies may opt for reporting both at the local and global levels in
order to meet the information demands of their different stakeholders, but the availability of sustainability
reporting at mine-site level should at least be available for the affected communities and other stakeholders
of the county such as the government and investors.
11 Association of South-East Asian Nations
12 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development encourages member states to conduct regular reviews on SDG progress, for further
information see [Link]

33
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Lack of focus on context and impact in reporting

There is a growing demand on companies to move beyond reporting statistics to providing comprehensive
information on the (positive and negative) effects and impacts that each company is having on the
environment and society. For example, a mining company should include information on the availability of
(and other demand for) water alongside performance indicators on its water consumption or the current
level of air quality around a mine site. The SDGs have been a factor in increasing the demand for context of
sustainability reporting of companies as their stakeholders want to understand the companies’ contribution
to sustainable development and the achievement of the SDGs. [25]

The importance of placing sustainability disclosures in a larger environmental and social (as well as
economic) context is highlighted in key reporting frameworks such as the frameworks of the GRI and the
IIRC, however they do not include guidance on how companies can do so. The reasons for which mining
companies do not place their reporting in sustainability context likely include the lack of clarity on how
to integrate the context but also eventually the lack of available information from national and local
governments. To address the gap in guidance on integrating context in reporting, the Center for Sustainable
Organizations has developed tools in recent years to help companies apply context to their reporting, in
areas such as water and waste management and GHG emissions. [78]

Another relevant initiative that can provide national context for sustainability reporting of mining companies
is the Hotspot Analysis Tool for Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP-HAT). The SCP-HAT initiative
was initiated in 2018 by the Life Cycle Initiative (hosted by UNEP) together with the One Planet Network
and the International Resource Panel. SCP-HAT combines national environmental and social data with
trade information to estimate environmental pressure and impact indicators (footprints).13 The approach used for
estimating the footprint indicators builds on Life Cycle Impact Assessment and environmentally extended multi-
regional input-output analysis. Environmental performance data is gathered at country as well as sector levels, in
the context of the most relevant policy questions and is intended for policy makers but also other stakeholders
such as NGO and the general public. [79] The data generated by the SCP-HAT tool supports government work on
SDG 12 on Sustainable Consumption and Production and can facilitate collaboration between companies and
governments and provide national context for sustainability reporting of mining companies.

In terms of accessibility of sustainability related data at the government level there has been an increasing trend
of governments embracing Open Data (see section below) to make environmental, social and economic data
available to its citizens. Although currently not focused on providing context for corporate sustainability reporting,
this may be an interesting area for improving the connection between national context sustainability data and the
information disclosed through corporate sustainability reporting.

Mining companies can also be inspired by and explore usage of open data and modern technology that allows for
real-time monitoring and publishing of environmental and health and safety data such as on pollution levels and
water quality. This kind of Open Data can serve to fulfil regulatory requirements, help manage internal risks, as well
as to provide information to concerned local communities.

Governments and Open Data

In an effort to increase transparency and accountability towards its citizens, governments around the world
have started applying Open Governmental Data (OGD), which is defined by the OECD as “a culture of governance
based on innovative and sustainable public policies and practices inspired by the principles of transparency,
accountability and participation that fosters democracy and inclusive growth.” [80] A key initiative for the OGD
movement is the Open Data Charter (ODC) which is a collaboration, initiated in 2015, and involving over 100
governments and organizations working towards opening up data using a shared set of principles.14 The ODC
is referenced by other key organizations that are active in promoting OGD such as the OECD, which adopted the
13 For further information see [Link]
14 The ODC Principles are: 1. Open By Default, 2. Timely and Comprehensive, 3. Accessible and Usable, 4. Comparable and Interoperable, 5.
For Improved Governanc and Citizen Engagement, and 6. For Inclusive Development and Innovation. See further information on:
[Link]

34
 Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector

Recommendation on Open Government in 2017 [81] and the EITI, which has an open data policy since 2019 and
encourages EITI countries to endorse the ODC. [82]

Lack of a holistic approach for assessing the sustainability of the

mining sector
Another systematic challenge is, that a holistic approach to assess the sustainability of the mining sector is
missing. The significance of sustainability reporting increases if comparable measures and evaluation systems
are used. For example, for the Food & Agriculture sector, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has
published the “SAFA Guidelines” (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems) [83] which allows a
holistic assessment of the sustainability performances of companies and farms of the sector. SAFA is explicitly
designed to assess and compare the sustainability performances of companies. In contrast to single issue
assessments, the SAFA Guidelines allow for the consideration of conflicting objectives (trade-offs) and synergies
in the assessment of sustainability performance and the selection and development of appropriate improvement
actions.

The SDGs in contrast, are a sustainability framework designed for the county level, not for assessing the
sustainability performance of companies. Companies that want to report their commitment to the SDGs should
therefore always carry out sustainability assessments first and build on the comparable and measurable data
obtained.

One advantage of introducing a systematic and comparable sustainability assessment approach for the mining
sector would be that sustainable mines that perform well in the assessment could also be more interesting for the
launch of sustainability funds based on this system.

Proliferation of standards and initiatives and lack of interoperability

The number of sustainability reporting frameworks, standards and initiatives (schemes) that apply to the mining
sector, as well as the number of VSIs for responsible sourcing, has grown substantially in recent years. This
development poses a challenge for sustainability reporting of mining companies as it may not be clear which
standards, initiatives or guidance to select and where several of those are applied there may be some level
of duplication which can amongst other lead to inconsistency, loss of credibility and create confusion for the
stakeholders that use the reported information. [84]

The topic of interoperability of sustainability schemes is specifically examined in the report Designing Sustainability
Certification for Impact. [84] The report found that: “While many schemes cross-reference other standards, there
are few that cross-recognise the certificates, claims or labels issued by other schemes.” [84] Efforts are being
made to address the challenge of interoperability including a collaborative workplan of SASB and GRI announced
in July 2020, to show how the two standards can be used together. [85]

Corporate reporting versus site-specific reporting

When considering the environmental and social impacts of mining companies, the impact associated with
the mining operations at the local level is of key concern, notably to the affected communities, workers and
governments. However, companies generally do not publicly disclose comprehensive site-specific information on
their environmental and social performance. [34]

The most widely used sustainability reporting framework in the mining sector is the reporting framework of GRI,
the GRI Standards. [77] This is in part due to the fact that the ICMM Mining Principles (Principle 10) requires ICMM
members to use the GRI Standards as a framework for their sustainability reporting. [86] The GRI Standards
focus on reporting at the corporate level and not on specific projects such as mining facilities. According to GRI’s
materiality principle companies should report on the topics on which they have the most impact as well as the

35
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

topics that are most important for stakeholder decisions about the companies. [87] The final decision on what and
how to report is in the hands of the reporting company.

Mining companies may choose to outline key environmental and social impacts of their operations on a project
or site-level basis or provide different levels of information to different stakeholders (e.g. provide site-specific
information to the affected communities and host government). At present, however, sustainability disclosure at
site-level is generally lacking among the leading mining companies. [34]

The ICMM Mining Principles were updated in February 2020 and now include a requirement for asset (project) level
reporting of ESG performance. The update followed the “increasing scrutiny of industry” and in order to “… supply
the increasing demand for metals and minerals, while giving confidence to customers and other stakeholders that
they have been produced responsibly.” [88]

The Mining Association of Canada (MAC)’s Towards Sustainable Mining Program (TSM) requires MAC members
to report annually on each of their mining facilities (assets/projects) against 30 environmental and social
performance indicators, which are embedded in eight performance protocols that focus on the following core
areas: Communities and People, Environmental Stewardship and Energy Efficiency. [89] The TSM program builds
on the Canadian regulatory environment for mining companies, i.e. it does not cover issues that are already
addressed in Canadian regulation. [90] Chapter 7 includes a more detailed overview of the TSM program.

The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) provides a voluntary system offering independent third-
party assessment of environmental and social performance at the mine site. In order for a mine to receive a score
by IRMA, the mining company must undergo an independent audit against all relevant requirements in IRMA’s
Standard for Responsible Mining [91], which is divided into twenty-six chapters focused on: Business Integrity,
Planning for Positive Legacies, Social Responsibility and Environmental Responsibility. Assessment of a mine
against the IRMA Standard includes interviews with residents of communities near the mine, mine workers and
relevant NGOs. The report from the mine audit process is public for review by all stakeholders.

Assurance of Sustainability Reporting

General status of sustainability reporting assurance
There has been growing emphasis on the need for enhancing the quality of sustainability reporting. Although it
has not been formally evidenced that an assurance process increases the quality of sustainability reporting, it
has been shown to help reduce errors and enhance the credibility of the reported information vis a vis company
stakeholders. [92]

The definitions of ‘assurance’ of sustainability information differs slightly between the different organizations. In its
guidance document on “The external assurance of sustainability reporting” the GRI provides the following definition
for ‘assurance’: “the outcome of an independent verification process, the term is often used interchangeably with
the term verification. It is increasingly used to describe the evaluation and assessment services provided by
independent accounting and other firms, usually based on specific assurance standards or frameworks.” [93]

The practice of assuring information in sustainability, or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), reports, has been
growing steadily among large companies. According to KPMG’s Survey of CSR Reporting 2017 a total of 67% of
the largest 250 companies seek assurance of the information reported in their sustainability reports. According to
the survey, the rate of assurance increases as the practice of sustainability reporting matures within countries. [25]

Although the uptake of assurance of sustainability reporting has been growing it is still a voluntary initiative
without an agreed global standard. The KPMG Survey of CSR Reporting of 2013 specifically looked into the level
of assurance of sustainability reporting. The findings included that a majority (72%) of companies opted for a
‘limited’ rather than a ‘reasonable’ level of assurance and around half the companies chose to verify their whole
report while the other half limited the assurance to selected indictors or chapters of their report. [94] According to

36
 Sustainability Reporting – Focus on the Mining Sector

another study conducted in 2019, about two thirds (63%) of the companies that engage in an assurance process
do so by engaging an accounting firm to provide the assurance. [92]

Reporting framework organizations that promote sustainability or integrated reporting (such as GRI, SASB and
IIRC) generally advise assurance to enhance the quality of sustainability reporting but do not mandate it as part
of their reporting requirements. [95] The two key international standards used for the assurance of sustainability
reporting are the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 and the AA1000 Assurance
Standard (AA1000AS). [93]

There are also different requirements for assurance in different countries. For example, in the EU directive on non-
financial reporting, assurance is optional, but countries may decide to make assurance mandatory. [39]

Assurance of sustainability reporting in the mining sector

In parallel to the growing emphasis of responsible mineral sourcing, there has been increasing pressure on mining
companies to provide reliable and high-quality information on their environmental and social performance. Large
manufacturers, such as Apple and Microsoft, have started to demand assurances that the minerals used in their
products are mined in a responsible way.

In response to this growing demand some of the VSIs relevant to the mining sector have strengthened their
emphasis on third-party verification and assurance. This chapter discusses the key developments and initiatives
related to this topic.

Assurance in the GRI, ICMM and TSM standards

The sustainability reporting framework that is most widely referenced by large mining companies, the GRI
Standards, advise external assurance of the reported information but it does not require it. [96]

As discussed earlier in this report, the ICMM requires its members to report in accordance with the GRI Standards
at the corporate level. Following an update of the ICMM Mining Principles in February 2019, the requirement for
assurance of ICMM member reporting were enhanced. The update was prompted by a growing investor demand
for enhanced ESG disclosures from mining companies. [97] The updated principles are accompanied by a new
“Assurance and Validation Procedure”, [98] which requires some level of assurance at the mine-site level, as well
as the corporate level. Earlier ICMM assurance requirements only applied to the corporate level. These new
requirements will concern around 650 assets in over 50 countries, owned by 27 companies. [99] In its Assurance
and Validation Procedure, the ICMM notes the following explanation of the new requirement:

“There is an expectation that some assurance procedures take place at asset level as well
as at the corporate level. This is required in order to review source data and to understand
the flow of data from the source through to the corporate level for consolidation in the
sustainability report.” [98]

The ICMM does not, however, prescribe a required level of assurance (reasonable or limited) nor does it
require the use of a specific assurance standard. These decisions are left to the discretion of ICMM member
companies following consideration of management needs and stakeholder interests. [98]

The Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining program includes a mandatory assurance
at the mine-site level, which has been an important factor in the program’s success. [100] The program
includes a yearly self-assessment and an assurance engagement by an independent verification service
provider every three years. This process is further described in Chapter 7.

37
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance

The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) is a not-for-profit, internationally focused multi-stakeholder
initiative founded in 2006 to meet the global demand for more socially and environmentally responsible mining.
[101] The IRMA governance is shared by civil society, communities and organized labor alongside the private
sector. IRMA decision-making process strives for consensus, and where it cannot be achieved a voting process
takes place. However, no topic can be passed if one of the stakeholder groups is fundamentally opposed. [103]

IRMA offers an independent third-party verification and certification against its Standard for Responsible
Mining for industrial-scale mines. [91] IRMA covers all mined materials (except for energy fuels), and is
operational in all parts of the world, for all sizes of mines that are industrial (mechanized). [102] The Standard
provides a set of objectives and performance requirements for environmentally and socially responsible
practice of the mining sector. It serves as a basis for IRMA’s independent third-party assessment and
certification, which became available at the end of 2019.

The standard has 26 chapters covering the full range of environmental and social issues related to the
impacts of industrial-scale mines. It supports and integrates relevant OECD guidelines such as the OECD
Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chain and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful
Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector. Reviews take place at the mine-site, and the standard
describes ‘best practice’ for mines globally and also encourages mines at any level to engage and be
recognized for continuously improving.

IRMA Assurance – Third party certification

IRMA is the only mine-site focused multi-stakeholder standard for industrial-scale mining that offers
independent third-party verification and certification, that requires corrective actions and continuous
improvement.15 IRMA is also the only mine-site standard that requires community engagement in all steps
of the process. The IRMA Standard has the most robust criteria related to fair labor and terms of work,
occupational health and safety, and community health and safety.16

IRMA and government engagement

IRMA’s Standard for Responsible Mining is intended to complement, not replace, strong laws and regulations.
The first chapter in IRMA focuses on legal compliance as a basic starting point for market recognition and
IRMA seeks to be a collaborative partner of governments. IRMA is engaging with governments to use
IRMA certification as a resource to develop legislation, to frame public procurement policies and to provide
proof of compliance with laws. For example, in 2019 IRMA met with Andean country governments in
Chile at the invitation of Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The meeting focused
on how standards such as IRMA can be used as a proxy for national mining indicators (via compliance/
certification), and how IRMA provides a way to enhance dialogue with industry and mining stakeholders on
key sustainability issues. Governments can play a role in incentivizing mines to use IRMA as a way to meet
the expectations of communities and civil society and also enhance the positioning of their jurisdiction to
global purchasers.17

15 Other standards require only reporting and benchmarking, but not change where there is a gap (information obtained from IRMA)
16 Information obtained from IRMA
17 Information obtained from IRMA

38
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
 xxxx

shutterstock/Phawat

MINERAL SUPPLY CHAIN REPORTING /

RESPONSIBLE MINERAL SOURCING
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

The large international mining and metals groups182have diverse operations across several countries. These
groups interact with the environment and society in complex ways. The energy and material used in the mining
operations are often sourced from different regions creating a complex supply chain of several companies.
The end product of the mining process is frequently sent to consumers living on the other side of the globe,
following refining and manufacturing in yet other places. In this global context, mining companies normally
apply both voluntary sustainability reporting frameworks and comply with the applicable national regulatory
requirements for sustainability reporting.

It is beyond the scope of this report to dive deeply into the reporting aspects of the supply chains of mining
companies, or the reporting of end user production companies. It is, however, appropriate to discuss some
specific elements of the mineral supply chain which link to sustainability reporting of mining companies to
provide a further context of the increasing demand on transparency of mining companies but also to provide
an insight into the complexities involved in the wider mineral supply chains.

This chapter has two key focuses. On the one hand, the chapter looks at the reporting of mining companies of
their own supply chain (sustainable procurement) with a specific focus on the increasingly important topic of
local procurement in mining and the associated reporting practices. On the other hand, the chapter explores
the wider mineral supply chain, focusing on initiatives for responsible mineral sourcing and their contribution
to pressure on mining companies to disclose their sustainability impacts at the mine-site level. The chapter
concludes with a specific look at traders in the mineral and metals sector, and the current lack of transparency
of their operations. While discussing the topic of the mineral supply chain this chapter also provides examples
of how the different sustainability initiatives that concern responsible mineral sourcing connect to the SDGs, in
particular SDG 8, 12 and 16.

Mining Companies’ Supply Chain (Sustainable

Procurement) Reporting
Before turning to the reporting aspects of the wider mineral supply chain and Responsible Sourcing Programs,
it is relevant to first consider some core elements of a mining company’s own procurement of materials and
services, as demonstrated on the left part of Figure 3, by the ICMM.

Sustainable procurement Responsible supply

Sustainability requirements Activities and information to
for suppliers and demonstrate how ICMM member
their products companies and their products
meet RSP program standards

Suppliers and Mining and End-use

contractors metals manufacturer

RSP requirements
(occurring as part of a multi-stakeholder
initiative, and setting standards for companies
along the supply chain)

Figure 3: The scope of responsible sourcing [104]

18 Including BHP, Rio Tinto, Vale, Glencore and Anglo American. See list under [Link]
companies-in-the-world

42
 Mineral Supply Chain Reporting / Responsible Mineral Sourcing

Recent years have seen a growing emphasis on the transparency of the sustainability impact of the supply
chains of mining companies as part of the overall, positive and negative impact, of mining companies in the
context of sustainable development. Reporting on supply chain management is included in key sustainability
reporting frameworks and industry initiatives used by the mining industry such as the frameworks of GRI,
SASB, the ICMM Principles and the Responsible Gold Mining Principles of the World Gold Council.

To take an example, the Responsible Gold Mining Principles (RGMPs) of the World Gold Council (WGC) require
WGC member companies to adopt and publish a Supply Chain Policy. WGC members are required to support
their contractors and suppliers to apply sustainability standards that are comparable with their own standards,
such as in areas concerning ethics, health and safety, human rights and the environment.193Public reporting on
the mining company’s sustainability performance, as well as of its supply chain, are part of the requirements
of the RGMPs.204

Social and economic benefits of transparent local procurement in

mining
When looking at the economic benefits derived from a mining project to the local community, local procurement,
such as payments to local suppliers of goods and services usually represents more than half of all in-country
payments associated with a mining project over the life cycle of the project. [105] Local procurement is also an
important tool to generate indirect jobs in the supply chain of a mining project.

The growing interest in local sourcing of goods and services is likely to be further strengthened by the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic which has upended global supply chains and forced mining companies to rethink how they
organize their supply chains. Although local procurement may be associated with higher upfront costs (such as for
training of local workers) it may be economically beneficial in the long run and help secure business continuity in
case of a health crisis. The COVID-19 crisis is pushing mining companies to re-calculate the optimal balance of local
versus global sourcing, considering their supply chain’s vulnerability to health crises. [106]

Policies for local procurement

Local procurement policies can be an effective tool for governments to ensure that the country and host communities
benefit from mining projects. Such policies can also limit the dependency on royalty and tax payments. Focusing on
local procurement is also in line with SDG 8, which includes inclusive economic growth, full employment and decent
work for all.215 The potential contribution of the mining sector to SDG 8 is demonstrated in Figure 4, which is obtained
from the publication Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development Goal: An Atlas (this publication is discussed
further in Chapter 3).

Figure 4: Examples of how mining can contribute to SDG 8 [107]

19 See Principle 3.1 of the RGMPs, available on: [Link]

20 See Principle 1.7 of the RGMPs (Accountabilities and reporting)
21 For more information on SDG 8 see [Link]
43
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Promoting local procurement can also help governments and mining companies gain and maintain host community
acceptance for mining projects and can help mining companies keep their social license to operate. [108]

Although increasing in popularity and relevance, local procurement practices are not without risks. For
example, local procurement in the mining sector can be associated with corruption, if proper processes
and reporting are not in place. In an effort to help governments address this risk the EITI has promoted
increased transparency on payments for local goods and services to combat the corruption risk that is often
associated with procurement policies. At least 24 EITI countries were reporting on their local procurement in
2018. [109] The EITI has also started to more proactively encourage reporting on the procurement practices
of extractive industry companies. At the EITI’s October 2019 Board Meeting in Addis Ababa, the board agreed
to start sharing disclosure practices on supply and service contracting. [110]

According to the EITI it is estimated that 90% of resource-rich countries have adopted a form of local
content policy. [109] South Africa and Ghana are examples of countries where local procurement in the
mining sector has been formalized in mining regulations. [108] Definitions of local content, and the ways
to integrate the topic in covered in policies, regulations, and individual contracts, vary between countries
but typically the goal of the policies and provisions include increasing local employment and economic
development, facilitating technology transfer and increasing training for local staff. [108] There are many
pre-conditions that are needed for policies on local content in mining to be successful, as outlined by in the
2019 IISD/IGF publication Local Content Policies in the Mining Sector. [108] These include areas such as
regulatory enforcement, monitoring and evaluation, establishing partnerships with mining companies and
local communities and sophisticated reporting and data collection systems on local procurement. [108] The
topic of reporting and data collection is further discussed below.

Reporting and data collection systems on local procurement for mining companies

Government reporting on local procurement relies on mining companies publicly disclosing the relevant
information but so far mining companies have not been sufficiently transparent on the subject. According
to the Responsible Mining Index 2020, which evaluated 38 mining companies, about half the companies
publicly disclosed some information on their national and international procurement practices but with very
limited information disclosed. [111] Sustainability reporting frameworks such as the GRI Standards include
guidance on key performance indicators to include on local procurement. However, mining companies rarely
include this information at the mine-site level [109], where it is most relevant to communities and governments,
and there is a lack of standardization of how mining companies report on their local procurement practices.

The Mining Local Procurement Reporting Mechanism

Created in 2017 by the Mining Shared Value initiative of Engineers Without Borders Canada, The Mining Local
Procurement Reporting Mechanism (LPRM) [112] provides a set of disclosures in an effort standardize how
mining companies and host countries measure and discuss local procurement, with a focus on reporting at
the mine-site level. More specifically, the LPRM helps mine sites report on local procurement to:

• “Improve internal management in mining companies to create more benefits for host countries and to
strengthen their social license to operate.
• Empower suppliers, host governments, and other stakeholders with practical information that helps them
to collaborate with mine sites.
• Increase transparency in the procurement process to deter problematic practices such as corruption.” [112]
The LPRM provides disclosures for mining companies for local procurement in the following areas: Context
for disclosures on local procurement (LPRM 100), procurement systems (LPRM 200), local procurement
spending (LPRM 300), local procurement due diligence (LPRM 400), methods to incentivize local procurement
(LPRM 500) and external commitments and obligations (LPRM 600). [112] In line with the increasing focus
of gender equality in the mining sector, the LPRM places specific focus on encouraging procurement from
under-represented groups, such as women, through disclosure 507.

44
 Mineral Supply Chain Reporting / Responsible Mineral Sourcing

Mindful of the “reporting burden” felt by certain mining companies and mine sites the LPRM emphasizes
integration with existing reporting frameworks and standards such as GRI and IFC as well as in initiatives
by mining industry associations such as the ICMM and the Mining Association of Canada’s TSM Program.
Governments are also encouraged to refer to the LPRM in their relevant regulatory frameworks. [112]

Responsible Mineral Sourcing – Implications for

Transparency in Mining
There has been growing pressure for responsible sourcing of minerals for products such as jewelry, computers and
mobile phones. The pressure has emerged both from increased media focus on human rights and environmental
concerns associated with mining, increasing legislative pressure and more awareness among consumers.
Companies involved in the mineral supply chain, have started to respond to these concerns by informing their
stakeholders of their efforts in ensuring responsible sourcing of minerals and metals used in their products and
through participation in certification and assurance programs. [113] These developments have contributed to
the pressure on mining companies to effectively disclose their environmental and social impacts, as well as the
impacts of their own supply chain, as discussed above.

Figure 5: Key parts of the mineral supply chain [114]

Figure 5 shows the key parts of the upstream and downstream mineral supply chain from mining
operations to end-user companies. The reality is of course a much more complicated and international
mix of actors, including intermediaries, agents and transporters. A key point of the mineral supply chain
is found at the smelter or refiner (SOR) level. SORs are relatively few in number compared to upstream
suppliers and downstream users and they are in a position to know the origin of minerals before they
are processed and distributed to a large number of downstream users. [115] The Responsible Minerals
Initiative specifically focuses on enhancing transparency of the minerals supply chain at the SOR level. In
addition to SORs, transparency at the trading level is also important for visibility on the origin of minerals,
the lack of transparency at the trading level is discussed later in this chapter.

Responsible mineral sourcing is an important part of SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production.
As reflected in the report Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Atlas “companies can
collaborate with governments and across the supply chain to support a circular economy to minimize inputs
to waste from the mining process and to increase the reuse, recycling and repurposing of raw materials and
products to improve sustainable consumption.” [107]

45
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

TOWARDS RESPONSIBLE MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

A GLOBAL STANDARD
Towards responsible mineral supply chains
Trade and investment in natural mineral resources hold great potential for generating income, growth
and prosperity, sustaining livelihoods and fostering local development. However, a significant share
Figure 6: Mining and Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) [107]
of these resources is located in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, where they may contribute,
directly or indirectly, to armed conflict, including terrorist financing, human rights violations and
The following sections look further into key initiatives, guidance and regulations for responsible mineral
hinder economic and social development.
supply chains and their connections (and lack thereof) with the reporting of mining companies.
The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for The Guidance is applicable to all The Guidance was developed by OECD

OECD Due Diligence Guidance for responsible mineral supply chains

Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals minerals and global in scope. Companies and non-OECD countries (including
from Conflict-Affected and High- sourcing or using minerals in their countries from the International
Risk Areas clarifies how companies operations are expected to ensure their Conference on the Great Lakes Region),
can identify and better manage risks supply chains are clean and transparent. industry and civil society, as well as the
The OECD Due Diligence
throughout the entire Guidance
mineral supply for Illegally
Responsible Supplyinclude,
exploited minerals Chain butof UN
Minerals from Conflict-Affected
Group of Experts on the Democratic and
chain, from miners, local exporters and are not limited to, gold and those found Republic of the Congo. It integrates
High-Riskmineral
Areas (the “OECD Minerals Guidance”) [116] provides detailed guidance to help companies
processors to the manufacturing in electronic equipment such as tin (used recommendations developed by the
respect human rightscompanies
and brand-name and avoid that usecontributing to conflict
in laptops), tantalum (mobile through their mineral
phones, Financial Action Task purchasing
Force (FATF), which decisions
these minerals in their products. fibre optics) and tungsten (light bulbs). sets standards and promotes the effective
and practices. The Minerals Guidance is particularly relevant for those companies
implementation of measuresthattoare potentially
combat
sourcingTheminerals
Guidance aimsor metals from areas affected by conflicts or risks
to help companies linked to
money laundering andpolitical instability or
terrorist financing.
respect human rights, observe applicable
repression,
rules institutional weakness,
of international humanitarian
The de facto
law insecurity, collapse of civil infrastructure
The Guidance is now referenced and used
or inwidespread
in binding regulations the United Statesviolence.
The Guidance recognizes
in situations the important
of armed conflict,
contributing to conflict and cultivate
avoid international standard
role extractive industries can playasintheeconomic
and serves basis for a draftdevelopment,
regulation on responsible mineral supply
EU

supporting livelihoods,
transparent and generating
mineral supply chains and Since tax itsrevenue in such areas. It therefore recommends identifying
adoption in May 2011, the chains. It is also part of the legal framework
and mitigating risks related to human rights, corruption and business integrity rather than avoiding high-
sustainable corporate engagement in Guidance has become the leading in several African countries, notably the
the mineral sector. The objective of industry standard for companies looking DRC, Burundi and Rwanda.
risk areas altogether. The OECD Guidance
the Guidance is ultimately to promote to livehasup tobeen referenced
the expectations of in
thea number of international declarations,
responsible private sector engagement international community and customers Together with China’s Chamber of
regulations and initiatives, including
in post-conflict fragile states. the relevant US and EU regulations (discussed in this chapter) and
on mineral supply chain transparency Commerce for Metals and the Ministry
Chinese Supply Chain Guidelines thatand areintegrity.
discussed in Chapter 6 (section on theof Commerce, China).
OECD [117] The OECD
supported

Guidance comprises 5 steps that are outlined in Figure 7.

    
Establish strong Identify and assess Design and Carry out Report annually on

A -step company
management
systems
risk in the supply
chain
implement a
strategy to respond
to identified risks
independent third-
party audit of supply
chain due diligence
supply chain due
diligence

framework

Figure 7: The 5 Steps of the OECD Guidance [118]

The OECD Minerals Guidance does not explicitly reference environmental risks. However, it is part of a group
of OECD instruments for responsible business conduct, including the MNE Guidelines and the Due Diligence
Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (the “General Guidance”), which do include environmental
risks, encourage sustainability reporting, and are applicable to all sectors and industries (with a focus
on companies’ operations as well as their supply chains). Within this normative framework, the Minerals
Guidance functions as a tool for prioritization for supply chains that originate in or transit conflict-affected
and high-risk areas.

The Minerals Guidance can also be a point of entry for greater consideration of environmental risks in
producing regions through a supply chain due diligence approach. This may be particularly relevant to

46
 Mineral Supply Chain Reporting / Responsible Mineral Sourcing

mineral production and trading models that have been subject to less environmental scrutiny in the past
but have recently become more prominent due to human rights concerns. Since Amnesty International and
Afrewatch’s 2016 publication of This is What We Die For focusing on child labour risks in cobalt production
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [119], several studies have examined the environmental and health
dimensions of cobalt production, particularly in the artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector. [120]
[121] [122]

The OECD Minerals Guidance’s appendix Suggested measures to create economic and development
opportunities for artisanal and small-scale miners provides recommendations to companies for responsibly
engaging with this sector. In particular, the process of formalizing ASM entails significant opportunities for
building environmental controls into mining operations. Indeed, several ASM sites in the DRC’s Copperbelt
region have started to formalize to varying degrees, variously instituting measures related to personal
protective equipment, dust control, water use, waste management and radiation. [123] Cobalt is a critical
material for many rechargeable battery configurations and, by extension, the transition to more sustainable
mobility. While still early in the development of formal and responsible cobalt ASM supply chains, the
integration of both human rights and environmental measures as part of pilot formalization processes
may comprise an important part of a just transition that transcends the full length of the supply chain.
Responsible engagement and formalization of ASM also provide opportunities for reducing the use of
mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining.

Conflict minerals in US and EU regulations and the SDGs

Regulations on responsible minerals have emerged in recent years, including in the US and the EU, which
refer to the OECD Minerals Guidance. The introduction of these regulations is part of the increasing pressure
on mining companies to ensure environmentally and socially responsible operations and effectively
communicate their performance to their stakeholders, including the relevant companies in their downstream
supply chain.

US Dodd-Frank Act

The US Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 entered into force in 2014. Section 1502 of the Act requires US publicly
listed companies to check their supply chains for tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold, if they might originate in
the Democratic Republic of Congo or an adjoining country. The US Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) adopted a final rule for section 1502 of the Dodd Frank Act in 2012. [124] According to the rule,
companies are required to address identified risks of potential funding of conflict or human rights abuse and
publicly report on their efforts annually to the SEC. It is recommended that companies employ due diligence
systems aligned with recognized international or national frameworks, such as the OECD Minerals Guidance
to understand whether there are conflict minerals present within their supply chains, and if so they should
take corrective actions and report on the results. [125] However, enforcement of the Act has been limited
due the SEC’s decision not to enforce the law, which followed a threat of US President Trump in 2017 [126]
to suspend Section 1502 of the Act on the claim that it violated the US Constitution.

In terms of the US Dodd-Frank Act´s direct impact on the sustainability reporting of mining companies, it is
important to note that the Act does not oblige listed companies to identify the mine or location of origin [115]
and therefore there are limits to the Act’s direct impacts on the reporting of mining companies.

According to the Responsible Sourcing Network’s 2019 Mining the Disclosures Report US companies are
generally not reporting according to the intent of the legislation and the quality of disclosure has declined
following the SEC’s decision not to enforce the Act. [127]

EU Mineral Supply Due Diligence Regulation

The EU Mineral Supply Due Diligence Regulation [128] was passed in 2017 and will be enforced in 2021. The
Regulation will require that EU importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (3TG) to ensure they import
these minerals and metals from responsible and conflict-free sources only. The Regulation will apply to up

47
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

to 1,000 EU importers and will indirectly affect about 500 smelters and refiners of 3TG regardless of whether
they are located in the EU or not. The affected companies will need to identify, manage and report on the
risks (potential and actual) linked to conflict-affected and high-risk areas identified in their supply chains
(including human rights risks such as child labour, sexual violence and disappearance of people). The EU
Regulation refers to the OECD Minerals Guidance discussed above. [129]

The requirements of the EU Regulation differ depending on where companies are located in the mineral
supply chain. To provide an example of requirements, importers of minerals and metals should list the
minerals they import and provide the names and addresses of their suppliers. [129] When minerals originate
from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, importers must provide additional information, including on the
mine of origin. [129] The Regulation therefore directly impacts mining companies operating in conflict-
affected and high-risk areas and can be expected put pressure of increased human rights disclosures at
the mine-site level. The EU Regulation is therefore stricter in its requirements than the US Dodd-Frank Act.

Conflict minerals and SDG 16

The issue of conflict minerals specifically connects to SDG 16 on Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions as
demonstrated in the publication Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Atlas, see Figure 8
below on SDG 16, which puts a focus on the prevention and preemption of conflict in mining operation and the
mineral supply chain.

Figure 8: Mining and Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16) [107]

Within SDG 16, target 16.4 is particularly important for the issue of conflict minerals. Target 16.4 calls to
“significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets,
and combat all forms of organized crime” by 2030. [130] Enhancement of transparency in the mineral
supply chain and due diligence are an important contribution to Goal 16. As stated in Mapping Mining to the
Sustainable Development Goals: An Atlas:

“By actively combating mining-related illicit financial flows through disclosure and reporting,
mining companies can encourage transparency and avoid undermining the integrity of public
institutions. Mining companies can also ensure they do not endanger peaceful societies by
preventing company-community conflict, providing access to information, human rights,
supporting representative decision-making and carefully managing their security approaches to
ensure they decrease rather than increase the likelihood of violence or conflict.” [107]

48
 Mineral Supply Chain Reporting / Responsible Mineral Sourcing

VSIs for Responsible Mineral Sourcing (Responsible Sourcing

Programs)
In addition to national and sub-national regulations and guidance, the increasing focus on transparency
of the supply chain of the mining sector has been accompanied by various VSIs, which cover a specific
or several commodities. The initiatives commonly include a process for assurance of responsible mineral
sourcing, and in some cases also a certification process. The VSIs target different parts of the mineral value
chain, some are directly aimed at the mining activities of companies while others also cover the stages of
refining, trading and use of the minerals by manufacturing companies.

Although VSIs are voluntary in nature, government regulation is a major driver of the uptake of mining VSIs.
In some cases, the use of VSIs are mandated through government legislation and in others they may be used
to show corporate efforts to enhance sustainable development. [90] The interaction between government
regulation and VSIs is discussed in Chapter 4.

Examples of VSIs that focus on responsible mineral sourcing, also referred to as ‘Responsible Sourcing
Programs’, are listed in Table 3. The initiatives all include a reporting element in their standards or guidance
material. The selection of VSIs in Table 3 is largely aligned with the VSIs in large-scale mining discussed in
the context of government policies and sustainability reporting in Chapter 4.

Organization Key material Key focus

Initiative for Standard for Responsible Mining and Certification (as Mine-site
Responsible Mining of 2019) Focus on mine-site level (the Standard covers
Assurance all types of commodities). [91]
World Gold Council Responsible Gold Mining Principles and Assurance Mine-site and corporate
[131] and Conflict-free Gold Standard [132] level
Responsible Minerals Due Diligence Guidance for Minerals (3TG and others) Smelters and refiners
Initiative [133] and Assurance Process [134]
Aluminium Performance Standard [135] and Assurance Manual Full supply chain
Stewardship Initiative [136]
Responsible Code of Practices [137] Full supply chain
Jewellery Council
Bettercoal Bettercoal code [138] and Assurance System [139] Full supply chain

Fair Stone Fair Stone Standard [140] Full supply chain

International Cyanide International Cyanide Management Code for the Mining companies
Management Institute Manufacture, Transport, and Use of Cyanide in the (mine-site operations
Production of Gold (Cyanide Code) [141] and transportation)

Table 3: Examples of VSIs for Responsible Mineral Sourcing

49
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Some of the examples of VSIs in Table 3 target the companies in the wider supply chains of minerals sourcing,
while organizations such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, the World Gold Council and the
International Cyanide Management Institute, have provided standards and processes that specifically target
mining companies and their operations. It can be expected that the initiatives that focus specifically on the
mining operations will help in enhancing the level of sustainability reporting quality of mining companies and
guide the focus of their reporting efforts to meet these standards.

Lack of transparency of commodity traders in the mineral value chain

Commodity traders are critical actors in the commodity value chains as their role is to move commodities
from suppliers to customers. Despite the importance of commodity trading, there is limited transparency of
commodity trading activities, such as on payments that traders make to governments in exchange for, oil,
gas and minerals. [142] In light of recurrent cases of corruption associated with commodity trading [143]
there are growing demands for enhanced transparency on trading activities from stakeholders of traders,
such as shareholders, lenders, civil society and journalists. [142] The EITI has been active in addressing this
issue in the last years in collaboration with global traders (including Glencore, Trafigura and Gunvor), mining
companies and civil society. [144]

Most of the commodity trading and marketing companies in the minerals and metals sector are privately
held and therefore not obliged to disclose their economic results, or environmental and social impacts. There
are a few exceptions such as Glencore and Noble Group which are public companies and therefore publish
their financial results as well as information on their sustainability performance. [143] Typically a sustainability
focus of a trading company would be on responsible sourcing, i.e. managing environmental and social impact
in its supply chain. This is, for example, the case for Noble Group which identifies the supply chain as its most
material topic in its sustainability report. [145] Glencore on the other hand is active throughout the mineral
supply chain and operates its own mines as well as supplying minerals and metals to end customers (from its
own mines as well as third-parties). [146] Glencore‘s sustainability focus is therefore both on the environmental
and social impacts of its mining operations as well as on responsible sourcing. [147]

Although traders are generally operating with limited transparency on financial and non-financial aspects,
they are increasingly subject to enquiries from financial institutions on their transactions as well as their
general corporate profile and policies. These enquiries are part of the regulatory compliance due diligence of
banks (such as for anti- money laundering and counter-terrorism financing) but also to fulfil internal policies
of the banks, sometimes concerning environmental and social topics to respect the bank’s own sustainability
commitments. Banks may refuse financing in case of insufficient or unsatisfactory information. [148]
Although trading companies are increasingly supplying sustainability related information, this information is
rarely made public and therefore not valuable for the wider transparency of the mineral value chain.

Another important recent development in enhanced transparency of trading in the mineral value chain, is
the introduction of the London Metal Exchange (LME) of responsible sourcing requirements, for all its listed
brands, in October 2019. [149]

As a means to raise awareness and build capacity on responsible extractives value chains, the Responsible
Mining Foundation is conducting a Responsible Extractives Trading (RET) study. [150] The study assesses,
based on publicly available information, a geographically dispersed set of companies trading in minerals,
metals, oil and gas in relation to their policies and practices on human rights due diligence, business
integrity, financial integrity, and environmental due diligence. The RET study, to be published in 2021, will
support implementation of the international guidance on responsible supply chains mentioned above and
the Swiss government’s guidance for the commodity trading sector on implementation of the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights (see Chapter 5). The Responsible Mining Foundation, a Swiss-
based independent research organisation, encourages continuous improvement in responsible extractive
value chains by developing tools and frameworks, sharing public-interest research results and data, and
enabling informed and constructive engagement between companies and other stakeholders.

50
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
 xxxx

shutterstock/Scott-lee

GOVERNMENTS AND SUSTAINABILITY

IN THE MINING SECTOR
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

In order to advance the sustainability performance and transparency of the mining sector, and to help
provide the broader context for national sustainable development priority and challenges, governments
have an important role to play. There are several ways in which governments can be more proactive in terms
of directing or guiding mining companies towards enhanced sustainability. Tools that governments can use
in this effort include the Sustainable Development Goals and making better use of results of Environmental
Impact Assessments to inform mining companies’ efforts towards improving their management of
environmental and social issues as well as their reporting. This chapter looks more closely into these areas
and introduces how the EITI has moved to include environmental issues in its work with governments and
extractive (including mining) companies.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the associated Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. [151] The SDGs, which national governments
committed to attain by 2030, provide an ambitious set of targets for improving global environmental
sustainability, economic development, social cohesion and human development. The COVID-19 pandemic,
which is fundamentally affecting the world’s economies and societies, is expected to increase poverty and
inequalities at a global scale, is further increasing the urgency of achieving the SDGs. [152]

Although governments formally committed to attaining the SDGs, it is clear that success can only be
achieved through a global partnership of governments, the private sector, civil society organizations and
other stakeholders. While businesses did not formally commit to the SDGs, their views were considered,
notably through industry associations, in the multi-stakeholder consultation process leading up to the
formalization of the goals. [153] The lines between the roles and responsibilities of the public and private
sectors in SDG related areas, such as health, human rights, infrastructure and water and food sustainability,
have become increasingly blurred providing new opportunities for public-private partnerships for advancing
the SDGs. [154]

It is, however, important to highlight that the reporting of progress towards the SDGs is officially done
by governments as the SDGs are designed for the country level and not for assessing the sustainability
performance of companies. It is up to each government to determine how the input from other national
actors, such as businesses, is gathered and whether that input is formalized through action plans, mandated
through regulation, or encouraged. Innovative approaches, such as using open data principles for sharing
information between governments and companies should be considered for advancing meaningful reporting
on the SDGs. Governments can help companies by identifying and providing the data for determining a
baseline for corporate sustainability reporting, such as data relating to air quality, water availability, labour
statistics and information on local suppliers. And companies, in turn, can supply governments with the
relevant data for reporting on the SDGs.

Although the SDGs only came into effect in 2016, a PwC study from 2018 found that 72% of mining and
metals companies already mention the SDGs in their sustainability reporting and 54% of the companies
mention the goals in their business strategies. [155] When considering disclosure of meaningful Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs), across all sectors, only 23% of the surveyed companies linked their targets
to the SDGs. [155] While the increasing reporting of companies against the SDGs is a generally positive
trend, there is a risk of ‘SDG-washing’ as companies determine the focus of SDG reporting, including which
goals to focus on, and may omit mentioning negative impacts that could hamper the achievement of the
goals. [34] Governments can play an important role in guiding or directing mining companies on which
goals and related issues are of most relevance to local priorities and context.

The SDGs are relevant to the mining sector in a number of ways, as shown through the examples of SDG 8,
12 and 16 in the previous chapter. In the previously quoted publication Mapping Mining to the Sustainable
Development Goal: An Atlas [107] the linkages between mining and the SDGs are explored as well as the
broader role of mining and the private sector in sustainable development. The publication is divided into

54
 Governments and Sustainability in the Mining Sector

chapters on each of the SDGs with a discussion on the contributions the mining sector can make to achieving
the SDGs, the opportunities and challenges as well as relevant case studies from mining companies.

Figure 9 provides an overview of the key overlap between mining and the SDGs.

Figure 9: Major Issue Areas for Mining and the SDGs [107]

As outlined in the Atlas, mining companies can use the SDGs to validate their current efforts towards
sustainable development and stimulate innovation. The document also emphasizes that successful
incorporation of the SDG will be facilitated with partnership between businesses, governments, communities
and civil society. [107]

Building on the Atlas, a subsequent publication, Mining and the SDGs: a 2020 status update22,2provides
an up-to-date report on how mining companies are currently: (1) developing opportunities to contribute to
the SDGs; (2) avoiding and mitigating their risks of impeding achievement of the SDGs; (3) integrating and
prioritising the SDGs within their corporate strategies; and (4) reporting on their positive contributions to, and
negative impacts on, the SDGs. The report presents recommendations for mining companies on practical
steps they can take to improve their contributions to the SDGs and their impact reporting.

An innovative project was initiated by the government of Colombia in 2018 where the private sector’s,
including mining companies’, contribution to the SDG was analyzed. The results were reported as part of the
2018 National Voluntary Review of the SDGs. Further information can be found in Chapter 5.

22 Available in September 2020 on [Link]/mining-and-the-sdgs

55
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Corporate Sustainability Reporting in the SDGs

SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production is of particular relevance to the private sector. Target 12.6
requires UN Member States to “encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt
sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.” [156]

One of the indicators associated with target 12.6, indicator 12.6.1, states that governments should report on the
“Number of companies publishing sustainability reports.” As of September 2019, there is a methodology available
to assist governments in reporting on the indicator, [157] including guidance on what minimum information should
be included in a report to be counted towards the indicator as well as a proposed partially automated government
reporting process involving a global reporting platform. Awareness raising and testing of the methodology will
take place in the course of 2020.

With the aim of providing governments with relevant information on assessing the private sector contribution to the
SDG implementation, and assist in reporting on SDG 12.6.1, UNCTAD published the Guidance on core indicators for
entity reporting on contribution towards implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2019. [158]

An important effort has also been made by key sustainability reporting frameworks to map how their different
disclosures and indicators relate to the SDG, and thereby help reporting companies focus their sustainability
efforts and reporting towards attaining the SDGs. Examples of relevant publications include the SASB Industry
Guide to the Sustainable Development Goals (2020) [159]and the SDG Compass of GRI, the UN Global Compact
and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2015). [160]

EIAs as Part of the Government Approval

Process for Mining Projects
As discussed earlier in this report, when considering the environmental and social impact of the mining process
the mine-site (project), and its surroundings is of key concern. Most countries require an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) in the government permit process for mining projects. EIAs are a point of entry for governments
to determine whether a mining project should be allowed or not.

EIAs are in some cases integrated with social impact assessments and are then often called environmental and
social impact assessments (ESIAs) and in some cases social considerations are considered within EIAs. [161]
EIAs originate from the 1970s and are primarily focused on identifying future environmental, and generally also
social, consequences of a current or proposed action, such as a project. An important part of the EIA process
is public consultation. An EIA in the mining sector is usually conducted by the mining companies that plan to
establish a mining project which is subject to government approval, including an environmental permit. National
regulations for EIAs vary widely between countries which leads to a lack of comparability between projects.

A related and more recent type of EIAs is a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which focuses on a higher-
level adoption of a plan, project or policy by the government. [161] As opposed to EIAs, which are conducted by
private entities, such as companies, SEAs are conducted by governments and generally require a high degree of
government ownership in the proposed plan or project. At least 40 countries have a formal SEA process in place,
including all EU member states. [161] The use of the terms EIA, ESIA and SEA differ between countries depending
on definitions in national regulations. Here the focus is on EIAs that are prepared by companies for government
approval, and include both environmental and social impacts.

EIAs are generally not intended to assess compliance with a specific environmental, or social, standards but rather
to ensure that all critical information on the future impact on the environment as well as the affected communities,
is made available and considered in the decision-making process and public consultations. Government processes
around EIAs take account of the national context, e.g. in Mexico a public information meeting must be held in case
such a meeting is requested by anyone impacted by a mining project.23 3

23 Information obtained from the Mexican Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources

56
 Governments and Sustainability in the Mining Sector

Despite the tendency of national regulation to provide for EIAs in the government approval process for mining
projects, the choice of methods and tools to quantify the impacts of the project is generally left in the hands of
mining companies. This leads to varying standards for measurement and limits comparability of environmental
and social impact management between projects. [162] Another important factor to consider is that governments
most often assess financial revenues and the environmental and social impacts of mining projects through
separate processes. This forces them to weigh economic benefits against their environmental and social impacts
in their decision-making process instead of having a complete overview of the existing tradeoffs and thus being
able to make more informed decisions. [162] In light of urgent global challenges such as climate change and water
scarcity, it is becoming ever more pertinent that governments evaluate new mining projects more broadly in the
context of sustainable development. It is therefore essential that economic as well as social and environmental
factors are considered in an integrated way, right at the outset of a project and through its lifetime as well as post-
closure. A more integrated assessment can help policymakers and the various stakeholders of mining projects
make more informed decisions on whether a mining project should take place and if so under what conditions.
[162]

In line with the general lack of environmental and social reporting at the level of mining projects there is currently
little relationship between the content of EIAs and the disclosed environmental and social indicators in corporate
sustainability reports. This is an area where public policy could play a larger role, such as in enhancing the link
between the outcomes of EIAs and broader environmental, social and economic goals and initiatives relating to
sustainability at the national level. [163] A more systematic approach to sustainability assessments, including
guidance, at the international level could also help in providing a global benchmark for sustainability of the mining
sector. This could assist in harmonizing national EIA legislation as well as help mining companies provide the
most relevant data in their sustainability reporting.

Sustainability Initiatives Collaborating with

Governments – Examples of IGF and GRI
There are various forums that governments can use to exchange and explore ideas to further sustainable development
and the environmental and social responsibility of the mining sector. Box 3 and 4 provide overviews of two of these forums,
the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF) and GRI’s Governmental
Advisory Group. Although the latter is not mining sector specific, it primarily addresses the topic of sustainability reporting
and may therefore be of interest to governments that look to enhance the sustainability reporting of mining companies
operating in their countries.

57
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Box 3: The Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF)24 4
The Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF) supports
more than 75 nations committed to leveraging mining for sustainable development to ensure negative
impacts are limited and financial benefits are shared. [164] A voluntary initiative, the IGF was established
following the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in South Africa. The IGF
creates an opportunity for national governments with interest in mining to collaborate to advance the
priorities identified in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (which includes promoting transparency
and accountability for sustainable mining and minerals development [165]), and, more recently, the UN
Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030. [166]

IGF member efforts are framed in the IGF Mining Policy Framework (MPF) [167] which sets out objectives
and processes for good governance. The MPF is a non-binding policy guidance tool that lays out
international best practice in six key pillars255 of mining law and policy. [167]

The MPF offers a platform for developing national policies that promote consistency and transparency
across national jurisdictions. A comparative analysis of the SDGs against the MPF will be used as a basis
for a proposal to update the MPF. [167]

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has served as secretariat for the IGF since
October 2015. The IGF secretariat includes experts in economics, law, policy, geology, and environmental
management. [168] The secretariat conducts assessments on member practices against the MPF, at the
request from IGF members. The first assessments were carried out in 2014 in the Dominican Republic,
Madagascar and Uganda. Based on the success of these evaluations, assessments are conducted every
year in response to member requests. The results of the assessments are published on the IGF website
to help governments focus their effort in implementing the MPF, to inform capacity building and monitor
progress. [169]

Box 4: GRI’s Governmental Advisory Group266

GRI recognizes the essential role of policy makers in achieving transparency and sustainable
development. Both governments and GRI have a shared interest in ensuring that GRI’s activities help
support government-agreed goals and are optimally supported and utilized by public agencies.
For this reason, in 2007, GRI developed the so-called Amsterdam Declaration where it was announced
that the organization would engage with governments in their role as policy makers, funders, stewards
of the public good, owners of state-owned companies, investors, and procurers. As more than 100
government officials joined the 2008 GRI Conference, the idea of the GRI Government Advisory Group
was first formed.
The Group serves a high-level function to advise and provide feedback to GRI’s Board and Executive
Management, as well as a direct source for strategic governmental relationship building. It allows
members to stay up to date on the latest developments around sustainability reporting, to provide
insights to the development of GRI’s activities and Standards, and to engage with other policy makers to
further drive their agenda on responsible business conduct in a collaborative manner.
For more than 10 years, this group has championed the role of governments in advancing transparency.
It is instrumental to GRI’s leadership and strategic direction on policy and regulation on sustainability
reporting, the development of the GRI Standards, and thematic work such as the SDGs.

24 The information in Box 3 was contributed by the IISD

25 Legal and Policy Environment, Financial Benefit Optimization, Socioeconomic Benefit Optimization, Environmental Management, Post Mining
Transition and Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining
26 The information in Box 4 was contributed by GRI

58
 Governments and Sustainability in the Mining Sector

The EITI’s Growing Role in Enhancing

Transparency of the Environmental Impact
of the Extractive Industries  
Chapter by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)

Based on the principle that a country’s natural resources belong to its citizens, the EITI promotes the open
and accountable management of oil, gas and mineral resources. The EITI Standard implemented by 53
countries requires government disclosure of information along the extractive industry value chain, from
licensing to extraction. Disclosure requirements include how extractives operations are being managed, how
revenue makes its way through to government, and how it contributes to the economy and wider society.
The Standard is implemented at the national level, where multi-stakeholder groups oversee implementation
and ensure it is aligned with national priorities. Although national governments are responsible for reporting
to the EITI extractive companies, including mining companies, are at the core of the EITI process as they
provide data for government reporting.

Update of the EITI Standard to reflect environmental aspects

In 2019, the EITI Standard was revised to reflect emerging practices in implementing countries. The
standard already included requirements related to reporting on significant environmental taxes, fees or
other payments related to environmental impact. A total of 37 out of the 53 implementing countries have
already reported collecting environment taxes, fees or similar payments from companies. Where such
payments are significant and levied by project, the EITI requires these to be disclosed by project by the
end of 2020. This will provide local stakeholders with better opportunities to track payments that relate to
specific projects affecting their communities.

The EITI Standard now also encourages implementing countries to disclose information on the management
and monitoring of environmental impacts of extraction. The new provision covers disclosure of relevant legal
provisions and administrative rules as well as actual practice related to environmental management and
monitoring of extractive investments in the country. Depending on demands in each country, this can entail
reporting on EIAs, certification schemes, special licenses, environmental liabilities and rehabilitation and
remediation programmes. Such disclosures allow local stakeholders to improve how environmental, social
and economic risks in the extractives sector are managed, enhancing the sector’s potential to contribute to
sustainable development.

The update of the EITI standard was a result of demand from implementing countries and proactive
campaigning of global and local civil society for better information on environmental impact and risks.
[170] In February 2019, more than 100 civil society organisations signed a letter to the EITI Board asking
its members to support new requirements on transparency in environmental information provided by
governments. [171] Industry has been increasingly supportive as the demand for ESG reporting for the
extractive sector has increased drastically in the last years. To support countries and stakeholders in
implementing the new provisions of the standard, guidance on environmental reporting will be developed
and issued in 2020, building on existing reporting frameworks such as GRI. The EITI will also highlight and
disseminate innovative environmental reporting practices in implementing countries.

Increasing emphasis on environmental disclosures in EITI

countries
Implementing countries are increasingly using the EITI as a platform to monitor environmental impacts.
This includes assessing whether environmental permits are issued as part of the licensing process,

59
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

whether environmental impact assessments are conducted in accordance with environmental regulations,
whether companies are making environmental payments in accordance with their legal and contractual
obligations. Country monitoring also concerns checks on whether agencies responsible for collecting
environmental payments are efficiently performing their obligations and the adequacy of the management
of environmental rehabilitation funds.

At present, information disclosed through the EITI process is not connected or linked to information
included in corporate sustainability reports. The government level and corporate level reporting could,
however, further connect in coming years, notably in the context of the implementation of the SDGs. Some
examples of governments that, through the EITI process, have worked with industry and civil society to
enhance transparency on environmental and social aspects in the mining sector include the governments
of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Philippines, Zambia and Mongolia.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

In the DRC, concerns around the environmental impact of large mining and oil and gas projects have been
repeatedly raised by civil society actors, highlighting repercussions on public health and potential risks of
displacement for affected communities. The 2018 Mining Code introduced innovations around companies’
environmental obligations, the implementation of which represents a priority for EITI stakeholders, as
stated in the DRC EITI 2020 work plan. For the first time, the 2017 EITI Report published in December
2019 included information on coordination between government services on environmental monitoring
per the legislation, as well as a description of the assessment of EIAs for the obtention of “environmental
certificates”, as part of the process for license awards. The report also included partial disclosures of three
revenue streams, including contributions to the rehabilitation fund and fees paid to the Mining Cadastre
CAMI and the Congolese Environment Agency (ACE).

Two months after the publication of the EITI Report, local NGO Oil and Mines Governance Center (OMGC)
published a critical analysis of the above information. While commending disclosures around companies’
contributions to the rehabilitation fund, the analysis provided concrete recommendations to encourage
project-level disclosures, expand coverage of reporting to a dozen environmental payments, disclose
relevant documents such as EIAs, and the audit of the revenues allocated to the rehabilitation fund.

The Philippines

In the Philippines, companies are required to undertake environment protection and enhancement activities
in all stages of a mine’s lifecycle - from mine exploration to mine rehabilitation. In its latest EITI Report,
the country provided information about company commitments in their respective Annual Environmental
Protection and Enhancement Programs (AEPEPs) and actual expenditures for these commitments. AEPEP
shall approximate a minimum of 3-5% of the company’s direct mining and milling costs. Additionally, other
environmental expenditures, such as mine waste and tailing fees, are disclosed and reconciled. These
disclosures allow stakeholders including civil society to compare whether company commitments related
to environmental protection are met.

Zambia

In Zambia, concerns have been raised by stakeholders about mining company payments related to
rehabilitation and the management of the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF). The fund ‘lodges’
contributions as deposits to be spent by the government in case of need for rehabilitation of mining
areas where the mining license holder fails to do so. Companies are required under the EITI to report their
payments to the EPF.

Audits conducted on the EPF by the government found that the fund was not working effectively. The
audits undertaken to ascertain the extent of the environmental liability caused by each individual mining
firm found that mining companies were not complying with the EPF’s regulations and the majority were not
paying the stipulated contributions. Zambia EITI Reports have also highlighted challenges in the oversight
of the fund, and the latest 2017 report recommends improving the implementation of the EPF by setting up

60
 Governments and Sustainability in the Mining Sector

a clear investment policy, appointing a fund manager and ensuring that all mining companies comply with
the EPF requirements. These recommendations are being followed up by the Ministry of Mines and Mineral
Development.

Mongolia

In Mongolia, mining companies are required to deposit 50% of their annual budget for execution of
environmental protection work to the environmental protection account of the relevant region. This amount
is refunded to the companies upon completion of their obligations in EIAs. According to the 2018 EITI
Report, no refund was made in 2018. Moreover, the report provides information on the share of production
areas that have been rehabilitated in 2018 as well as an overview of water and waste fees paid by reporting
companies in 2018. Additionally, the report notes budgeted and actual air pollution expenses related to the
coal industry, allowing stakeholders to understand whether the expenses due have been paid.

61
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
 xxxx

shutterstock/[Link]

SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING THROUGH

VOLUNTARY SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES
(VSIs) IN THE MINING SECTOR
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Chapter by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

The role of VSIs in promoting transparency

through information-sharing and reporting
in the mining sector
Information-sharing in the mining sector is becoming ever more important. In order to meet the diverse
needs of stakeholders and regulatory authorities, mining companies must be transparent about the impacts
of their activities – both at the level of the mine site, and along their often-complex supply chains. Reporting,
and more generally the public disclosure of sustainability performance in mining activities, including
environmental, social and governance (ESG) data, can take many different forms. It can be done by the
mining companies themselves or through other platforms. As mentioned in previous chapters, in addition
to public policies and laws that may require mandatory corporate reporting on sustainability issues and
the financial institutions that increasingly require ESG reporting as a form of due diligence (i.e. responsible
investment), there are also numerous voluntary sustainability initiatives (VSIs) that have emerged that also
have an information-sharing or reporting element.

VSIs are supply chain initiatives led by industry associations, NGOs, and other multi-stakeholder
organizations that aim to promote sustainable sourcing, production and consumption practices, often at
the global level. Their voluntary nature sets them apart from other public and private efforts. They have the
distinct advantage of responding to a demand in the market for such schemes, and as such the level of
uptake by companies across different commodities can be quite good. [90] Mining companies may join a VSI
for a variety of reasons. The upstream drivers (at the level of mines, mining companies, or national mining
associations) are generally associated with business risk and reputation management, and maintaining the
so-called ‘social license to operate.’ Downstream drivers (from retailers or industry associations) often come
from societal concerns about conflict funding, emissions management, and fair labour, and compliance
with related legislation, which in turn builds interest in sourcing from VSI-certified supply chains. However,
a major challenge, depending on the design of the VSI, can be having the enforcement and assurance
systems in place to ensure that companies are complying with the criteria outlined in the scheme. VSIs
operating in the mining sector define their own enforcement and assurance systems ranging from self-
reporting to third party certification.

As previously outlined in this report, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), provide an important
operating context for companies, public authorities and civil society involved with mining and extractives
activity today. The achievement of the SDGs will require combined efforts of public, private sectors as well as
civil society. In theory, VSIs can support public and private sectors in working towards the SDGs by building
transparency through reporting and information-sharing along the supply chain, by building awareness of
sustainability issues, promoting a culture of inclusion, by collecting, aggregating and disclosing data on
sustainability-related indicators, and by identifying gaps and development priorities in specific geographic
regions – among other ways. In practice, this will require continued and deeper collaboration across actors
and organizations to make sure that there is comparability or complementarity in data sources, indicators
and assessment methods so that rates of progress in the mining sector towards achieving SDGs can be
measured and reported meaningfully.

64
 Sustainability Reporting through Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives (VSIs) in the Mining Sector

Findings from the report Standards and

the Extractive Economy
This section draws from the relevant findings of a 2018 report, Standards and the Extractive Economy,
co-developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Intergovernmental
Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF). [90] Findings from two different
parts of the report are presented below: firstly on the interplay between VSIs and government activity on
sustainable mining, and secondly on the results of a systematic comparison of 15 VSIs operating in the
mining sector, as it relates to sustainability reporting and information-sharing more generally.

VSIs and public sector regulation

Government regulation is one of the major drivers for the uptake of VSIs; as such, it is important for policy-
makers to think about the interplay between regulation and these voluntary schemes. Both the expansion
and contraction of regulation can lead to the emergence of VSIs in the mining sector. The development of
new environmental codes and laws, for instance, can create a market for VSIs in order for companies to
demonstrate compliance with the new norms. On the other hand, the roll-back of environmental protection
legislation, or the lack of government capacity in a certain domain, can spur the creation or uptake of a VSI
in order to fill the gaps in regulation or enforcement. VSIs can also complement regulation by focusing on
areas that are difficult or too technical to regulate effectively (e.g. what to include in an effective tailings
management plan). The Standards and the Extractive Economy report highlighted some specific ways that
governments can leverage the growing presence of VSIs. The different measures that governments can take
towards this end are outlined in the following sections.

Identifying targets

Governments face the difficult task of balancing trade-offs in decisions about development; a large mining
project that may offer employment and export revenues, for instance, may also threaten social cohesion
and natural resource stocks and quality. It is challenging for governments to implement sustainable
development, and in spite of good intentions through declarations, policies and laws, it is still a slow and
complex process. VSIs can help draw attention to key issues, and identify areas that require more monitoring
or improved practices. They can also provide benchmarks for tracking or demonstrating progress towards
local, national and regional goals. One example shared by an official from Sierra Leone was that the active
presence of the Diamond Development Initiative in their country helped them to identify artisanal and
small-scale mines as a priority, specifically the need to integrate them into the formal economy and build
compliance with legal frameworks.

Incorporating VSIs into policy or law

Some VSIs may prove to be so comprehensive, fit-for-purpose or robust that they eventually get incorporated
into soft or hard law. One example is the reference to several VSIs as potential due diligence mechanism in
the OECD Minerals Guidance (the OECD 5-step Due Diligence Framework, discussed in Chapter 2), which
is a soft-law that will transition to hard law through the European Union’s 2021 Conflict Mineral Regulation.
This law will mandate importers to use the framework, and thus, they might leverage VSIs as mechanism
of compliance. The specific criteria embedded in VSI standards can also become technical specifications
in public procurement tenders, driving markets for more sustainably sourced raw materials.

Broadening support and evidence for progressive policy intervention

There can be broader positive spill-over effects from the activities of VSIs in local economies and beyond.
They can create a culture of accountability, inclusion and participation in the supply chains they work
in. This might, in turn, lead to normative change in the jurisdictions where they are active (promoting
gender equality and women empowerment, public participation, safer practices etc.) in a way that might

65
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

complement government efforts, or encourage further regulatory support. Also, concretely, VSIs can create
a real demand for monitoring and verification professionals, offices, technologies, and institutions in the
regions where their company members are active, which are needed to carry out auditing or third-party
verification activities. They may also provide training and capacity-building opportunities (one example
is ASI’s learning program and online platform ‘educationAI’). Finally, VSIs can generate data on company
activities at the site level and/or at the company levels, through internal controls, research, surveys, and
reporting, which may be particularly valuable in places where data collection is sparse, or too complicated
and expensive to collect. However, understanding the nuance of the different types of data that comes from
VSIs is an important issue, and is addressed in the following section.

Results from a comparison of select VSIs in the mining sector

Box 5 presents the 15 different VSIs that were included for analysis in the study, categorizing them by
the type of mining activity they apply to. These initiatives were systematically assessed based on the
‘CARE’ criteria: what is the Coverage of issues in the scheme (in terms of their content, and required level
of obligation); what Assurance systems are in place to assess if companies are applying these criteria in
the field, what is the Responsiveness of the scheme to changing local and global conditions over time; and
finally, what is the level of Engagement of the company with stakeholders and communities?

Box 5: Initiatives included in the 2018 IISD-IGF report Standards and the Extractive Economy
Large-scale industrial
• Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI)
• Bettercoal (BC)
• International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)
• International Finance Corporation (IFC)
• Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA)
• Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC)
• Responsible Mining Index (RMI)
• Mining Association of Canada: Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM)

Stone and Aggregates

• Cornerstone Standards Council (CSC)
• Fairstone (FS)
• Natural Stone Council (NSC)
• The Forest Trust (TFT)
• Xertifix (XF)

Artisanal and Small-Scale

• ARM Fairmined (FM)
• Fairtrade Gold and Silver (FT)

‘Access to Information’ was one dimension analysed under the Engagement part of the CARE assessment,
which comprised a set of indicators including whether or not companies’ annual sustainability reports,
financial statements, board membership, company membership and a host of other items were made
available to the public. One general observation that can be made is that there was variation across the
15 VSIs in their scores on ‘Access to information’ – though generally the VSIs in artisanal and small-scale
mining (FM and FT) scored the highest in this category. VSIs do not always have a reporting requirement
– in the sense of requiring companies to publish general, corporate, annual reports on environmental and

66
 Sustainability Reporting through Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives (VSIs) in the Mining Sector

social impacts. More fundamental to the VSI model, is that the scheme itself sets out specific criteria by
which to assess company’s activities – based on the priorities of its stakeholders. This criteria might be
very narrow in its issue area of interest (for example, related exclusively to greenhouse gas emissions
or to human rights protection), or in its commodity scope (for example, specific to the mercury pollution
associated with gold production in particular). On the other hand the VSI might strive to cover all types of
large-scale mining activity, and all of its associated social, environmental and economic impacts. These
differences were captured in the Coverage part of the CARE analysis. Therefore, it is important to note that
VSIs can lead companies to report sustainability information in at least these two different ways: against
the VSI’s own criteria and priorities, and/or by encouraging companies to do general, annual (or otherwise)
sustainability impact reports. While the former is an integral part of the design of most VSIs, the latter is
secondary but can provide potentially helpful information to the public.

Secondly, the level of obligation (under Coverage) part of the CARE assessment revealed differences in the
institutional designs of VSIs that have implications for information-sharing. Some VSIs have an ‘obligatory’
approach and require full compliance with all of their respective criteria in order for a company to participate
in the scheme or to become certified (ASI, IFC, RJC, CSC, FS, FM and FT are examples).272 Others have a
more flexible approach, letting companies reach full compliance over time, or by offering different levels of
achievement in working towards full compliance (IRMA, ICMM, XF, and NSC are examples). Finally, some
VSIs have an optional approach, in which compliance is either required at only a very basic level, or the VSI is
used primarily as a reporting tool only (BC and TFT are examples). There is nothing inherently problematic
with any of these approaches – and all of these models can generate useful data. Understanding these
differences, however, for researchers, policy makers, and in processes of data aggregation is essential.

Finally, under the Assurance part of the CARE analysis, an important distinction is made between self-reporting
and third-party verified reporting. The findings show a trend towards third-party assurance systems, with all
of the VSIs in the study engaging third parties in some capacity. In most cases, the VSI requires the member
company to commission their own third-party assessments and make it available to the VSI to review. In
other cases, a third-party audit is undertaken, but the VSI governance body comes to its own conclusions
based on the results. Whether or not this is reflective of trends across all mining VSIs cannot be confirmed,
but it is a positive sign in terms of working towards transparency and robustness in sustainability reporting
to VSIs from companies.

27 Data used in the report came from research undertaken in 2017-2018, and the placement of the VSIs in these categories may have changed
since. At the time of writing, TSM fell between the flexible and optional approaches. At the time of writing IRMA was in the obligatory approach
category but has since introduced levels, therefore it was placed it in the flexible approach category here.

67
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Box 6: Traceability Systems in Mining VSIs

1. What is traceability?

Traceability is the ability to access any or all information about a product throughout its life-cycle by using a
system of recorded identifications. Traceability also relates to the ability to track and trace along the supply
chain. While tracking allows the supply chain stakeholders to follow the downstream path of a product, tracing
enables identification of the origins and characteristics of the product when following an upstream path in the
supply chain. [172]

2. What role do traceability systems play in information-sharing and reporting across the value chain?

Traceability systems determine to a large extent the level of information that is shared and disclosed along
the value chain. They allow to illustrate the chain of custody, which is the sequence of stages and custodians the
product is transferred to through the supply chain. Traceability systems are considered an aspect of many VSI’s
assurance systems – i.e. one of the ways that VSIs ensure companies are doing what they say they will do.

3. What different type of traceability systems are there in the mining sector?

Not all traceability systems provide assurance of the physical traceability of material from a mine through to
an end product; this can be very challenging and costly for mined products. The choice of a particular chain of
custody approach will depend on the kinds of claims that a VSI making about the origin and/or processing of
materials. Examples of the different types of systems used are28:3
Based on physical traceability: source identity preservation, certified content control
Not based on physical traceability: mass balance, book and claim or certificate trading

4. Main findings from the Standards and the Extractive Economy report

The report concluded that it was the VSIs with strong demand from downstream users, consumers and brands
that were more likely to have developed traceability systems. At the time of writing, this included ASI and RJC
from the large-scale mining initiatives, and IRMA was in the process of developing theirs. Overall, while many
of the large-scale mining VSIs did not have traceability systems, during interviews conducted many schemes
expressed that they were actively considering this option as a response to growing downstream interest.

28 For a detailed description of each of these systems, please see the full IISD report: Potts, J., Wenban-Smith, M., Turley, L. and Lynch, M. (2018).
State of Sustainability Initiatives Review: Standards and the Extractive Economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available
at: [Link]

68
 Sustainability Reporting through Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives (VSIs) in the Mining Sector

Critical Analysis of Sustainability Reporting

and VSIs
Company reporting on the various dimensions of sustainable development is essential, especially as the
global community faces the combined challenges of climate change, natural resource degradation and
exhaustion, and a growing human population. Mining activity is set to grow in the coming decades, [173]
and supply chains for metals, minerals and other mined materials are notoriously opaque and difficult to
trace. This reality further drives the need for robust and innovative ways to collect and share information.

VSIs are now part of this landscape. The Standards and the Extractive Economy report aimed to provide
some clarity and insights on the diversity of VSIs in the mining sector, on the coverage of VSIs in different
commodity markets, and to provide some reflections on how the VSIs interact with regulation. In terms
of sustainability reporting, the relevant findings from the report are highlighted above, namely that not
all reporting efforts are equal – different VSIs have different priority areas (e.g. human rights, carbon
emissions, biodiversity protection etc.) and place different degrees of emphasis on reporting and access to
information. There are also many differences in VSI design in terms of the levels of obligation required of
members, and in types of assurance systems they demand. Fundamentally these different designs are not
‘good’ or ‘bad’, but stem from different theories of change, in which the role of information sharing can vary.

Generally speaking, VSIs are institutions that can encourage and complement governmental reporting efforts
and the development of indicator frameworks. As one example, in May 2019 IISD was invited to present the
Standards and the Extractive Economy report to a group of policy makers at the Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) who were seeking to better understand the experiences of VSIs
in developing sustainability indicators in mining. The goal of the meeting was to assist decision-makers in
improving public policy and their own indicator frameworks to guide the national mining sectors towards
the achievement of the SDGs. Through forums like this, valuable lessons can be shared about the strengths,
weaknesses and mostly different intended purposes of sustainability indicator frameworks.

The task is daunting. There are many challenges and pitfalls in developing sustainability indicator
systems, implying that actors and organizations who undertake sustainability reporting, or sustainability
assessments, and the aggregation of indicators to feed into the SDGs, must be well-equipped to undertake
critical assessment of the quality and rigour of different framework designs. Challenges can be related
to: temporal orientation of the data, the quantity of indicators, aggregation and integration levels, spatial
focus, systems conceptualization, the definition of attributes to be measured, the unit of analysis and the
availability of reliable information. [174]

While governments can take advantage of VSIs to inform their policies and indicator development processes
or sustainability assessment frameworks, they should also consider playing a strong steering role in their
development. Governments can set minimum requirements in their own reporting activities and ‘raise the
bar’ for the VSIs operating in their jurisdictions. They can require sustainability reporting to have a third-party
assurance system in place, establish the need to consult with a range of stakeholders in the development of
indicators frameworks, to set standardized indicators, to insist on the frequency intervals and – of course
– to be in compliance with all relevant minimum legal standards.

69
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
 xxxx

shutterstock/Peek Creative Collective

GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES TO ENHANCE

SUSTAINABILITY AND REPORTING OF THE MINING
SECTOR – EXAMPLES FROM THE GROUP OF FRIENDS
OF PARAGRAPH 47
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

The examples of government approaches towards enhancing sustainability reporting, with a focus on
initiatives and policies that are directed at or impact the mining sector, have been developed with the support
of governments of the GoF47. The examples are intended to inspire and encourage other governments to take
measures, such as through policies, to enhance sustainability reporting of the mining sector in their countries.

South Africa
Mining is a key sector for the South African economy. South Africa is a major producer of gold, diamonds,
platinum and coal and to a lesser extent chrome, vanadium, titanium and a number of other minerals including
chrome. [175] The mining sector’s share of GDP was 8% in 2017. [176]

There have been a number of regulatory initiatives in South Africa that aim at increasing and strengthening
sustainability reporting of the mining sector. The following sections provide key information on the mining
sector’s legal frameworks that concern environmental and social aspects, discusses core national drivers
for sustainability reporting of the mining sector as well as core legislation concerning reporting of the sector.

The core material in the following section was developed by the Department of Environment, Forest and
Fisheries, South Africa. The material was developed with the support of a ‘framework for evaluating national
public policies on corporate sustainability reporting’ which was developed through a joint GoF47 and UNEP
project in 2015 and outlined in the report Evaluating National Policies on Corporate Sustainability Reporting. [2]

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act was adopted in 2002 (Act No. 28 of 2002) through a
parliamentary cosultative process involving South African citizens, civil society and the business community.
The Act was amended in 2008 (Act No. 49 of 2008) and it is undergoing another amendement process on
its regulatory frameworks to address Environmental, Social and Economic Dimensions in accordance with
the industry’s impacts and requirements.

According to section 25 of the 2008 amendment act, the state may expropriate any land or any right for the
purpose of providing equitable access to the nation’s resources, stimulating economic growth, advancing
employment and promoting the sustainable and ecological development of mineral and petroleum
resources.

On 28 November 2019, the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy published Draft Amendments to
the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Regulations, 2019 for public comment. Once finalised
the amended act will come into operation on the date of publication in the Government Gazette292for
implementation.

National drivers for enhancing sustainability reporting of the

mining sector
Accountabilty and development serve as primary drivers in the South African Mining sector. Both these
drivers are derived from the South African constitution, emphasising the need to cater for South African
citizens and contribute to economic growth. Mining companies are under pressure to convince stakeholders
of the valuable role they play in the South African capital market and the positive social contribution they offer.

The move to more holistic reporting, both financial and non-financial, is especially relevant in the mining
sector in South Africa. The sector is targeted by pressure groups, journalists and environmentalists due to
the adverse social and environmental impact with which it is associated. Amongst these is land degradation,
worker health and safety issues, pollution and living conditions of miners.

29 [Link]

72
 Government Initiatives to Enhance Sustainability and Reporting of the Mining Sector –
Examples from the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47

In South Africa the mining sector has been held up to greater domestic scrutiny than any other, particularly
given its apartheid past, its importance to the South African economy and its relatively poor safety record. In
light of the mining sector’s long history it has also had a longer time than any other industrial sector in South
Africa to develop high levels of reporting, including sustainability reporting.

The King IV Code of Corporate Governance of the Institute of Directors in Southern Africa of 2016 guides
companies in applying integrated thinking to businesses, with emphasis on seeing the business as an
integral part of society, stakeholder inclusiveness, sustainable development and integrated reporting. [177]

Another important factor in driving sustainability reporting is the the dual listing of major mining companies
active in South Africa on stock exchnages in the United Kingdom or the Unites States, where corporate
reporting criteria are more stringent and stakeholder pressure is significant. The South African JSE also
has a responsible investment index (FTSE/JSE Responsible Investment Index [178]) and the Code for
Responsible Investing in South Africa was published in 2011. [179]

Sustainability reporting in South Africa has also been driven by the South African National Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Reporting Regulations that came into effect in April 2017. [180] The regulations were
accompanied by technical guidelines for reporting companies. [181]

The Promotion of Access to Information Act

The purpose of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) of 2000 [182] is to give effect to section
32 of the Constitution. Section 32 provides for “the right of access to information” and states that “everyone
has the right of access to any information held by the State and to information held by another person that
is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.” [183]

The motivation for giving effect to the right of access to information is to foster a culture of transparency
and accountability both in Public and Private Bodies; and to promote a society in which the people of South
Africa have effective access to information, to enable them to more fully exercise and protect all their rights.
The prescriptiveness of this Policy/Act also lies on the oversight powers of the Parliament.

The South African Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results,

Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (SAMREC)
The SAMREC Code was first issued in March 2000 and adopted by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange
(JSE) in their listing requirements later that year. The code underwent revisions in 2007 and 2016. The Code
sets out minimum standards, recommendations and guidelines for Public Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves in South Africa. [184]

The SAMREC Code is one of three codes of the South African Mineral Reporting Codes (SAMCODES) which are
codified sets of standards and guidelines applicable to the South African Minerals and Petroleum Industries.
[185] The Code is one of 11 members of CRIRSCO (Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting
Standards), the international family of international mineral reporting codes. The codes have common
definitions and reporting framework and primarily aim at meeting disclosure demands from investors. [184]

The SAMREC Code is based on the principles of materiality, transparency and competency. It is
acknowledged that no single document could cover all accepted industry practices or standards given the
range of commodities, deposit types, mining methods, and available metallurgical processes. [184]

Guideline for the reporting of ESG parameters within the mining industry (SAMESG)

To support the implementation of the SAMREC Code, as well as the two other related South African Mineral
Reporting Codes303 the SAMESG guideline defines recommendations and guidance for public reporting of
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) matters in the extractive industries. The guideline outlines

30 These are the South African Code for the Reporting of Mineral Asset Valuation (SAMVAL) and the South African Code for the Reporting of Oil
and Gas Resources (SAMOG)
73
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

a mininum reporting standard and applies the ‘report or explain’ principle, i.e. if an organization does not
report in accordance with the recommendations of the guideline it should explain why.

The guideline references various international frameworks and organizations, including the International
Council on Mining and Metals, the Global Reporting Initiative, the King IV Code on Corporate Governance
and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Colombia
Colombia is Latin America’s main coal producer, it has large gold, nickel and copper deposits and it is the
world’s largest emerald producer. [186] There is currently a growing interest in Colombia to further increase
the country’s copper production. [186] Other minerals that are mined in the country include silver, salt,
limestone and iron. Mining represents around 2% of Colombia’s GDP. [187]

The regulatory framework for mining activities in Colombia is outlined in the Constitution and the Mining
Code (law 685 of 2001) as well as various environmental laws and regulations, that oblige the state,
amongst other, to protect the environment and natural resources, plan their management and guarantee
their sustainable development. According to the mining code all mineral resources are property of the state.
[188]

In terms of environmental authorizations for mining projects, a key regulation is Decree 1076 of 2015,
[189] which is a Decree of the Ministry for Environment and Sustainable Development that compiles all
the Colombian environmental regulations and, amongst other, defines the authority in charge of granting
environmental licenses, which is the National Environmental Licenses Authority for large mining projects.

Sustainability reporting requirement under new ‘BIC’ company

status
In 2018 the Colombian government issued law 1901 and in 2019 decree 2046 which encourage companies
in all economic sectors to become companies of general interest or in Spanish ‘Beneficio e Interés Colectivo’
(Benefit and Collective Interest) or ‘BIC’ companies.

According to the regulatory decree, a BIC company combines its commercial activity with concrete actions
to promote employee welfare, social equality and environmental protection. BIC companies should uphold
a business model that embeds social and environmental responsibility, transparency, innovation, and
measurement and reporting of results. [190]

BIC companies are required to issue annual sustainability reports, using any of the following standards and
guidance documents: [191]

• GRI Standards

• ISO 26000

• B Company Certification

• SDG Compass

• AA1000 Standards

In 2019 a total of 54 companies registered under the BIC company status. [192] It is unclear how many of
these companies fall under the mining sector.

74
 Government Initiatives to Enhance Sustainability and Reporting of the Mining Sector –
Examples from the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47

Implementation of the SDGs in Colombia

In March 2018 Colombia published its national strategy for the implementation of the SDGs. [193] In an
effort to deepen the understanding of the contribution of the private sector and to achieving the SDGs, the
Government of Colombia initiated a pilot project, along with GRI and the Business Call to Action alliance
of the UN Development Program. The project analyzed the contribution of 70 companies across seven
sectors (including mining) on five of the SDGs by analyzing the companies’ sustainability reporting.

The results included the following information relating to the mining and energy sectors:

• SDG 6 on Clean Water and Sanitation: The mining-energy sector consumes more than 70% of
ground and surface water.

• SDG 11 on Sustainable Cities and Communities: Investment from the mining and energy sector
increased by 186% between 2016-2017. [194]

The results of the project were included in the Colombian Voluntary National Review of 2018. [195] In
2019, the partnership continued and launched the SDG Corporate Tracker, which is a pioneering initiative
that invites the private sector to measure its contribution to the SDGs in Colombia. In its next phase the
partnership will engage with SMEs, mixed companies and the infrastructure sector to capture data from
200 companies in Colombia. [196]

Switzerland
Commodity trading in Switzerland
Switzerland is a leading global commodity trading hub. The commodities sector plays an important role for
the Swiss economy. In 2017, revenues from commodity trading accounted for about 3.8% of Swiss GDP.
[197] With about 500 commodity trading companies, Switzerland is among the largest trading hubs for oil
and petroleum, metals, minerals and a variety of agricultural products. The most traded commodities in
Switzerland are fuels, minerals and metals (iron, copper, gold). [197]

Importance of the commodities sector for domestic and foreign

policy
Switzerland directs its economic policy towards shaping the macro business environment rather than
introducing specific policies for individual industry sectors. [197] The Swiss government (the Federal
Council) has taken concrete steps in the past few years to enhance the Corporate Social Responsibility of
the commodities sector with a particular focus on areas where the sector faces the highest risks, such as
in the areas of human rights and corruption.

In view of the public interest around the commodities sector, especially trading, and its significance for
domestic and foreign policy, the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), the Federal Department of
Finance (FDF) and the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (EAER) published
in 2013 a “Background Report on commodities” [198] establishing the basic policy objectives of the
Federal Council for this sector. The report made 17 recommendations on improving the overall business
environment and addressing risks, including those related to corruption, human rights and reputation. [197]
These recommendations were monitored and reassessed every second year.

75
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Federal Council report of 2018 - recommendations for increased

transparency in the commodities sector
Following three status reports since the Background Report, the Federal Council undertook a fresh
assessment of the commodities sector in 2018. In view of progress achieved in recent years, but also
persisting challenges and emerging trends, the report outlines various policy options to further consolidate
Switzerland’s position and mitigate certain risks. To this end, 16 new recommendations were formulated.
Three of these recommendations (6, 7 and 12) relate to Corporate Responsibility and increased transparency
in the commodities sector.

• Recommendation 6 advocates reinforcing the application of due diligence, in particular through

implementation of relevant OECD guidances and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights.

• Recommendation 7 concerns suggests that Switzerland pursue activities with the EITI in terms
of furthering transparency of payments to governments in commodities trading as well as pursue
commitments to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.

• Recommendation 12 is particularly relevant to the sustainability reporting agenda as it aims to

reduce the environmental impacts of natural resource extraction and trading activities and to
enhance environmental transparency and environmentally responsible corporate governance. It
emphasizes the importance of collaboration with international organizations such as the EU, OECD,
UNEP and UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) as well as through the work
of the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47.

Sustainability initiatives with respect to commodity trading

In 2018, following a long consultation process, the FDFA and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs
SECO (part of the EAER) issued the “Commodity Trading Sector Guidance on Implementing the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights”. [199] Elaborated in cooperation with the trading sector, civil
society and cantonal authorities, this document aims to enable traders ensure that the value chains which
they are in charge of do not entail human rights violations. The Trading Guidance has seen a wide uptake
from the commodity trading sector in Switzerland and abroad.

Another effort by the Swiss Government was, together with commodity traders and the EITI, to develop a
transparency framework within the EITI for payments by traders. This has built more transparency around
extractive value chains.

Sustainability initiatives with respect to commodity value chains

In 2012, the SECO launched the Better Gold Initiative for Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining [200] as a new
support to sustainable mining value chains, in cooperation with the private sector, represented within the
Swiss Better Gold Association (SBGA), including refiners, jewelers, watch makers, financing institutions
and banks. The initiative enables artisanal small scale (ASM) gold mines in three Latin American countries
(Bolivia, Colombia and Peru) to fulfill ESG criteria enabling them to export gold to Switzerland. The initiative
helps small-scale miners and mining cooperatives improve their technical knowledge and performance in
managing environmental and social risks and supports the Fairtrade, Fairmined and Reponsible Jewellery
Council certification systems. [201]

The SECO participated at the launch of the Responsible Mining Index (RMI), an evidence-based biennial
assessment of the economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) policies and practices of 38
large-scale mining companies that operate in more than 780 mine sites and together account for 28 percent
of the world’s mining activity by value of production. [202]

76
 Government Initiatives to Enhance Sustainability and Reporting of the Mining Sector –
Examples from the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47

CSR Action Plan 2020-2023

On 15 January 2020 the Federal Council adopted the revised CSR Action Plan 2020-2023. [203] Since the
adoption of the CSR position paper with the 2015-2019 Action Plan, important progress has been made.

Based on the awareness raising activities already carried out in recent years, the focus will now be on effective
support for companies and stakeholder dialogue. In the promotion of transparency, due to international
developments (e.g. at the OECD), the review of the implementation of CSR instruments and digitisation are
also considered.

The CSR Action Plan puts a specific focus on the increased transparency of companies, with a focus on
promoting sustainability reporting and harmonizing reporting approaches but also focusing on other types
of transparency linked to environmental and social issues, such as improved information on companies’
products.

In terms of sustainability reporting the CSR Action Plan notably includes the following information:

• The expectation of the Federal Council on 14 August 2019 that Swiss companies should account
for their respect of human rights and environmental standards wherever they operate. This position
was reiterated in the parliamentary debate on an indirect counterproposal for the Responsible
Business Initiative. [204]

• The active collaboration of Switzerland in the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47, in particular
through collaboration with UNEP.

• Switzerland’s collaboration with GRI on a project called ‘CSR for competitive business’ which in
particular focuses on facilitating reporting of SMEs. An important outcome of the project was a
digital tool to facilitate the sustainability reporting process.

• Support for the work of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (see information on the EITI
in Chapter 3).

• Support for the work of the Responsible Mining Foundation.

On 18. June 2020, the Parliament adopted the Revision of the Company law; among other novelties, the
revision introduces an obligation on mining companies registered in Switzerland to disclose payments to
governments and foresees the possibility for the Federal Council to extend this requirement to traders,
following possible developments abroad.
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
 xxxx

shutterstock/Marcelina Zygula

EXAMPLES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Canada
Canada is a leading mining country and one of the largest producers of minerals and metals. [205] Canada
is one of the top five producing countries for over 13 major minerals and metals, including potash, uranium,
niobium, nickel, cobalt, gold, diamonds and platinum. [206] The mining sector contributed 5% to the Canadian
GDP in 2018 [205] and accounted for 20% of the value of Canadian goods exports. [205]

Environmental Code of Practice for Metal Mines

The Environmental Code of Practice for Metal Mines from 2009 is a guidance document adopted by Environment
Canada (government department). [207] The document is applicable for the life cycle of mining, from exploration
to mine closure, and includes recommendations for the development and implementation of environmental
management tools, management of wastewater and mining wastes and prevention and control of air emissions.
The Code applies specifically to metal mines but also provides useful guidance for all sectors of the mining
industry. Recommendations on reporting on the different environmental impact of mines is included throughout
the document. Recommendations in the code do not carry regulatory status. [207]

Minerals and Metals Policy and Action Plan

The “Minerals and Metals Policy of the Government of Canada: Partnerships for Sustainable Development”
(the Policy) was established in 1996. [208] The Policy contributes to three central areas of the federal
governments agenda:

• Promoting Economic Growth and Job Creation.

• Furthering an Efficient and Effective Federation.
• Meeting the Challenge of Sustainable Development.

More recently, during 2018-2019, the Canadian government initiated a nation-wide multi-stakeholder
consultation resulting in the Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan for 2020 [209], which includes a vision and
targets to drive Canadian mining forward. The plan is the first in a planned series of action plans for the
mining and metals sector.

Both the Policy and Action plan put emphasis on integrating sustainable development, with key emphasis on
environmental protection, but they do not specifically cover the topic of corporate sustainability reporting.

The Canadian government’s support for Responsible Business

Conduct
Extractive industries (such as mining and oil and gas) play an important part in Canadian economic
development and prosperity. In addition to local operations, Canada’s mining sector is also one of the
country’s largest outward investors and is a recognized global leader. However, in some instances, Canadian
mining companies have faced challenges in resource rich developing countries, where weak governance can
contribute to local and/or national conflicts that are difficult to resolve. To assist Canadian companies in these
circumstances, the Canadian government, through the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service (TCS), has
taken concrete steps to promote Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) of Canadian operations abroad. [210]

One of the ways in which Canada advances RBC is through measures to improve transparency and
accountability in the extractive sector, including the mining sector. In 2015 The Canadian Extractive
Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA) entered into force. The Act requires extractive entities active
in Canada to publicly disclose specific payments made to all governments in Canada and abroad. [211]
ESTMA reporting is in line with the requirements of the EITI, of which Canada is one of the supporting
countries as well as a donor. [212]

80
 Examples from Other Countries

Sustainability Reporting in the Canadian Mining Sector

The Canadian mining sector is a leader when it comes to sustainability reporting with 27% of companies
reporting on their environmental and social performance according to a study from 2017. [213] The
emphasis on sustainability reporting by the mining sector in Canada may in part be explained by the
extensive environmental and social impacts of the mining sector in Canada (in line with other countries
with mining activities).

Other key drivers for sustainability reporting of the Canadian mining sector is the Mining Association of
Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) program and the Responsible Business Conduct program of
the Canadian government (discussed above). The TSM program is supported by the Canadian government
and referenced under the Responsible Business Conduct program (discussed above). Under the TSM
program MAC member companies commit to reporting on a set of TSM Guiding Principles through annual
TSM Progress Reports. Results of each of the mining facilities under the program are publicly available and
externally verified every three years. [68] Further information on the Mining Association of Canada’s TSM
program can be found in Chapter 7.

The Canadian CSR Strategy

In 2014 the Canadian government introduced an update to its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Strategy from 2009. The enhanced CSR Strategy is entitled “Doing Business in the Canadian Way: A Strategy
to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad.” [214] The strategy
emphasizes key international initiatives for CSR and promotes the GRI Standards for sustainability reporting
as well as the SDG Compass which is a tool that helps companies align their strategies and reporting to
the SDGs. The government has also put in place a Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise
to provide mediation and other services to help resolve conflicts should they emerge. In parallel to the
CSR Strategy, the Canadian government actively promotes various international standards for Responsible
Business Conduct including the OECD Guidelines for MNEs and the associated Due Diligence Guidance
on Responsible Business Conduct and other related sector and topic specific OECD guidance documents.
[210]

Mexico
Mexico is the world’s largest producer of silver, and also a top-10 world producer of other minerals including
gold, fluorite, lead, graphite, manganese, zinc, salt and bismuth. In addition, Mexico includes vast reserves
of unexploited minerals. [215] The share of the mining sector of Mexico’s GDP has decreased from 8% at
the end of 2010 [216] to around 4% in 2018 [217] but the level of investment has started rising again. [218]

According to the Constitution, all minerals found in Mexico are owned by the country but private companies
may exploit these minerals through a concession granted by the federal government. Mining activities are
regulated by the Mexican Mining Law. [215]

Sustainability reporting in Mexico

As outlined in The Road Ahead: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting of 2017 sustainability
reporting in Mexico has surged in recent years due to a mix of government regulation, stock exchange
innovation and investor pressure. Reporting rates among large companies in Mexico increased from 58% in
2015 to 90% in 2017, largely due to new regulation. [25]

Since 1996, as part of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation within Mexico, US, and
Canada, facilities must annually report their pollutants released to the air, water and land or for disposal or
underground injection; and transferred off site for recycling, treatment or disposal to the national Pollutant
Release and Transfer Register (PRTR). [219]

81
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

The General Law for Prevention and Comprehensive Management of Waste (from 2003, reformed in 2015)
states that mining companies must present their waste management plans to the authorities. [220]

Furthermore, any company can ask for a voluntary environmental audit process which consists of a
methodological evaluation of a company’s processes to determine its environmental performance. During
the audit process compliance with legal dispositions is verified as well as adherence to voluntary and
international norms. An action plan is then issued with specific actions for which progress must be reported
to be evaluated and certified. [221]

According to the National Water Law (from 1992, reformed in 2020) [222], people and companies having a
concession for the use of water must provide information to the authorities containing indicators about the
quality of their waste water discharges.

In 2013 the Mexican government issued the General Law on Climate Change, which requires companies to
report on their carbon emissions. The law was implemented in the period 2015-2017. [25]

Another important factor encouraging sustainability reporting was the Mexico’s stock exchange Bolsa
Mexicana de Valores (BMV) introduction of Mexico’s first sustainability index in 2011. [223] In order for them
to be listed on the index, which can help attract new investments, companies need to publish sustainability
reports. [25] According to the BMV website there are 111 companies listed under the materials sector
which cover mining and metals companies. [224] The reporting methodology proposed by the Integrated
Reporting Framework has been popular amongst Mexican companies due to its focus on meeting the
information needs of investors. [25]

India
The mining sector in India accounts for 2,5 of India’s GDP. [225] Many of the key companies of the sector are
SOEs. India is abundant in natural mineral resources and the country is one of the world’s main producers of
iron ore and bauxite. [225] India is the third largest producer of coal, behind the US and China. [226]

Section 135 of India’s Companies Act on CSR

In 2013 India introduced Section 135 to its Companies Act, adding a requirement that companies that have
reached a certain value, turnover or profits31,2 establish a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) committee
as a sub-committee of the company’s Board of Directors. The CSR committee should then propose a CSR
Policy for Board approval. In addition, companies are required to spend at least 2 of their average profits on
areas related to the CSR Policy. [227]

Regulation for large public companies to produce Business

Responsibility Reports
In India the top 500 listed companies on the National and the Bombay Stock Exchanges are required to produce
Business Responsibility (BR) Reports, which are to be included in their annual reports. In its notice of November
2015 to all entities listed on India’s stock exchanges, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) prescribes
a template for the information that should be included in BR Reports. [228]

The regulation initially covered the top 500 public companies but was extended to the top 1000 companies in
November 2019. [229] If companies are already publishing sustainability information in a specific sustainability,
integrated or annual report, the company does not need to submit another BR report but needs to specify where the
nine BR principles are covered in their reporting. The regulation calls for reporting on a diverse range of sustainability
areas including GHG gas emissions, energy use, stakeholder engagement and labor and human rights. [228]

31 Net worth of rupees five hundred crore or more, or turnover of rupees one thousand crore or more or a net profit of rupees five crore or more
during any financial year, see further information on [Link]

82
 Examples from Other Countries

Although not directly aimed at companies in the mining and metals sector, the regulation on business
responsibility reporting affects many of India’s largest mining and metals groups are listed on India’s stock
exchanges.323

National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct (2018)

In 2011 The Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued the National Voluntary Guidelines on the Social,
Environmental and Economic Responsibilities of Business (NVGs). Building on the NVGs, a new guidance
entitled the National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct (NGRBC) was released in 2018. The new
guidance integrates the ‘Respect’ pillar of the United Nations Guiding Principles and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. [230] The NGRBC reflects and supports the Business Responsibility regulation referred
to above and provides additional guidance on BR reporting as well as specific guidance for BR reporting of
SMEs.

China
China is the world’s largest producer of coal, gold and most rare earth minerals. China is also the world’s leading
consumer of most mining products, in particular of thermal coal and iron ore. [231] Following the economic
growth in China from 1980s until the 2000s the number of mines increased from 6,000 to more than 230,000.
Today more than 100,000 mines are currently operating, including mines for coal, construction materials and
small mines. [232] The Chinese coal sector has had one of the worst global records for fatalities. [232] Although
safety of miners remains a big concern in China there have been a lot of improvements in safety standards and
relevant government measures over the last two decades. [233]

Government promotion of sustainable development in the mining sector

In order to meet a slowdown in economic growth and ongoing environmental issues, such as a high level of
pollution, China increasingly sees sustainability as crucial to ensure long-term viability for its economy as well as
the quality of life for its citizens. [234]

The 13th 5 year-plan of the Chinese government (2016-2020) puts a specific emphasis on embedding sustainable
development across the Chinese economy. The plan makes multiple references to enhancing sustainable
development of the mining sector, for example through enhanced environmental controls, innovation in mining
techniques (including further atomization of coal mining operations) and shutting down mines that use outdated
techniques or are environmentally undesirable. [235]

In 2016 China released its national plan for implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development through
translating each of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into specific action plans. [236] Sustainability
reporting has been an important entry point in implementing the SDGs in China. [237]

Drivers for sustainability reporting in China

In line with the increased focus on sustainable development in the latest 5 year-pan of the Chinese government
there has been growing pressure on Chinese companies to enhance their environmental and social performance
and report on their progress. There have been several reporting requirements or guidelines for companies to
report ESG information, most of which were published in the last 10 years. [237] For example, the State-owned
Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council has issued regulations and guidance
for Chinese SOEs and the China Securities Regulatory Commission also requires listed companies to provide
information on their ESG performance. [237]

Chinese stock exchanges have also issued guidance and requirements for ESG disclosures in recent years. The
Shanghai Stock Exchange issued its Guidelines for Environmental Information Disclosure of Listed Companies

32 See list of public Indian mining and metals companies on [Link]

83
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

in 2008 and the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued its Social Responsibility Instructions to Listed Companies in
2006. [238] There is a trend towards more mandatory ESG disclosure with emphasis on materiality of the reported
information to meet growing investor demand for ESG information of key relevance to companies’ operations.
For examples, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange is requiring all listed companies to issue a statement on the
board’s consideration of ESG risks, as well as how it determines what ESG matters are material to the business
(applicable from July 2020). [239] As the stocks of nine of China’s biggest mining companies are either traded on
the Hong Kong Stock Exchange or the Shanghai Stock Exchange, they need to apply the increasingly stringent
ESG disclosure requirements to meet the needs of investors. [240]

The results of the different regulatory drivers and voluntary approaches to sustainability reporting is described
as followed in the ‘Carrots and Sticks’ report on trends in sustainability reporting regulation and policy of 2016,
emphasizing the important role of Chinese SOEs in encouraging sustainability reporting:

“The system in China illustrates the close interrelation between voluntary and mandatory
approaches. In this case, industry regulatory bodies and local governments follow the
regulatory approach of central government, while
state-owned enterprises act as ‘pilots’ to set an example to others.” [241]

Sustainability reporting of the Chinese mining industry

The practice of sustainability reporting has grown steadily by Chinese companies, from 19 companies
issuing sustainability reports in 2006 to 3040 in 2016. [241] The quality of sustainability reporting has
also been improving, partially due to an increased understanding of material issues and growing use of
international reporting standards by Chinese companies. [237] The mining industry has been one of the
industries with the highest quality of sustainability reporting. [242]

In terms of the mining industry, mining companies have been quick at meeting requirements for sustainability
reporting as stipulated in regulation from government and stock exchanges in order to maintain legitimacy.
Regulation has been key to enhancing the rate of sustainability reporting in the mining industry [243]
although there has not been a specific regulatory focus on sustainability reporting of the industry. Rather, as
has been the case in a number of other countries, mining companies are covered by reporting regulations
such as for listed companies and SOEs, as noted above.

There has also been growing use of international voluntary guidelines, notably the GRI reporting guidelines334, 
by Chinese mining companies. This increased emphasis on international standards has largely been the
demand of the international market which Chinese mining companies have increasingly been entering
to respond to growing global resource and energy demand. Survival in the international market means
adhering to stricter sustainability standards and providing information on key environmental and social
indicators, such as those included in the GRI reporting guidelines. [243]

Chinese Mineral Supply Chain Guidelines

Although China produces a number of materials it is still dependent on minerals and metals from abroad.
Chines companies have increasingly invested in mining assets in other countries, notably in developing
countries but also in countries like Canada and Australia. [232]

In 2015 the Chinese Due Diligence Guidelines for Responsible Mineral Supply Chains [244] were launched by
the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters (CCCMC).
The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with Chinese and international partners, including
Global Witness and the OECD, include a 5-step risk-based supply chain check process, including reporting,
for minerals which reflects the OECD Minerals Guidance (see Chapter 2). The guidelines apply to all Chinese
companies that extract or use minerals or mineral products at any point in the supply chain and apply to all
mineral resources, with a primary focus on 3TG. [245]
33 The GRI Standards, replacing the G4 Guidelines, were launched in 2016. Following a transition period of two years the GRI Standards became
effective in July 2018

84
 Examples from Other Countries

The scope of the guidelines extends beyond a due diligence for conflict minerals to also include wider
environmental and social issues that are reflected in a related guidance of the CCCMC from 2014, the
Chinese Guidelines for Social Responsibility in Outbound Mining Investments, which aim at “improving CSR
and sustainability strategies as well as effective management systems, to strengthen their capacity of
social responsibility governance and sustainable development.” [244]

85
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
 xxxx

shutterstock/Mark Agnor

GOVERNMENTS SUPPORTING NATIONAL MINING

ASSOCIATIONS – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO
ADVANCING SUSTAINABILITY
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

The Mining Association of Canada’s Towards

Sustainable Mining Program
Chapter contributed by the Mining Association of Canada

In 2004, in efforts to encourage sustainable mining practices, the Mining Association of Canada (MAC)
developed the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM), a program focused on enabling mining companies to
meet society’s needs for minerals, metals and energy products in the most socially, economically and
environmentally responsible way. MAC members commit to a set of TSM Guiding Principles, [246] which
concern several aspects of mining companies’ responsible approach to social, economic and environmental
performance.

The Canadian government has played a key role in promoting the adoption of TSM globally. The inclusion
of TSM in Canada’s Enhanced Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy has enabled Canada’s network of
Embassies and High Commissions to champion TSM in the countries in which they work. Further information
on initiatives of the Canadian government in promoting responsible business conduct and sustainability
reporting of the mining sector can be found in Chapter 6.

Public Reporting and Assurance

Specifically, the TSM program requires mining companies to annually assess, publicly report and verify
their facilities’ performance across several critical environmental and social areas, including tailings
management, water stewardship, Indigenous and community relationships, safety and health, biodiversity
conservation, crisis management, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions management and preventing
child and forced labour. The reporting for each facility (mine) is publicly available and externally verified every
three years. The 2019 TSM Progress Report shows how there has been steady performance improvement
amongst MAC members. Although it can take some time for facilities that are new to the TSM program to
achieve MAC’s goal of Level A performance in all indicators, TSM has clearly helped drive the adoption of
better and best practices over time. In fact, over time, MAC has seen a growing number of facilities going
beyond good practice to achieve Level AA and Level AAA performance ratings.

TSM’s verification process

Transparency is essential to the credibility of the TSM
program, and to that end the initiative is overseen by
an independent Community of Interest (COI) Advisory
Panel, which consists of individuals from Canada’s
three Indigenous communities, environmental
organizations, labour representatives, individuals
involved in finance, local mining communities, social
and faith-based organizations, academics and those
involved in international development. This panel
provides guidance and advice on the development
and maintenance of TSM and plays a critical role
in the reviewing facility performance. Figure 10
demonstrates the key parts of the verification
process. [247]

Figure 10: Verification levels in the TSM program [247]

88
 Governments Supporting National Mining Associations – Innovative Approaches to Advancing Sustainability

While implementation of the program is a requirement for all MAC members’ Canadian operations, many
choose to voluntarily apply it to their international sites. Since its inception, mining chambers from around
the world have adopted TSM to draw from Canada’s expertise and global interest is growing at a rapid pace.
Over the past several years, the program has spread beyond Canada to eight countries on five continents,
including Finland, Argentina, Botswana, Spain, the Philippines, Brazil and Norway with many other countries
having expressed interest in the program.

Voluntary cooperation to promote sustainable

mining in Finland
Chapter contributed by the Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining

The Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining was established in May 2014 to promote sustainability in
mining and exploration in Finland. The network was set up as a result of a major environmental accident
that occurred in a large nickel mine in Easter Finland (previously known as Talvivaara).

The accident occurred in autumn 2012, when a tailings dam started to leak massive amounts of untreated
wastewater into local fresh waters. This caused major uproar in the Finnish public and forced the Finnish
government to set up a roundtable process to improve the sustainability of mining practices in spring 2013.

National Action Plan on Sustainable Mining

As a result of this process, Finland published a national action plan on sustainable mining. [248] It contained
35 recommendations, two of which suggested that Finland should have a platform of cooperation, which
would bring together the mining sector and its key stakeholders to discuss and improve the sustainability
of mining operations in Finland.

These two recommendations were eventually taken up by the Finnish Innovation Fund (Sitra), which
established a temporary secretariat in Helsinki to develop the structure and mode of operations of the
network.

During the next 18 months, the secretariat brought together representatives from the mining sector and
its key stakeholders, including two environmental NGOs, the farmers’ and landowners’ association, the
reindeer herders’ association, labour union and the Regional Council of Lapland. Together, they prepared
in five working groups the key documents and instruments that would later be implemented in mining
operations and exploration.

The Canadian TSM standard adjusted to the Finnish context

The sustainability standard used by the Finnish network draws from the Mining Association of Canada
(MAC), adjusted to the Finnish legal framework. In addition to the existing six protocols (stakeholder
participation, biodiversity, energy and GHG emissions, tailings management, safety and health, and crisis
management), the network developed two additional instruments covering water management and closure
of operations.

Once operational, MAC and the Finnish Mining Association signed a license agreement, whereby MAC
approved the use of the Canadian TSM standard in Finland. Later on, similar agreements were signed with
other countries that have introduced similar measures as in Finland.

Companies implementing the Finnish sustainability standard are required to report on an annual basis the
improvements and results achieved within its eight protocols. First self-evaluations from mining companies
took place in autumn 2019. A wider selection of replies is expected in October 2020.

89
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Experiences from the first evaluations raised the need for some adjustments and clarifications in the
protocols. The network has set up a working group to go through the texts and prepare decisions to be
taken by the board.

Similar adjustments were made to the sustainability standard for exploration, which contained initially four
protocols (stakeholder participation, biodiversity, safety and health, and crisis management). The initial
standard proved to be too cumbersome to be properly implemented in practice. Consequently, the working
group proposed modifications that simplified its implementation without watering down its requirements.
The new standard for exploration contains three protocols (stakeholder participation, environment and
safety), which are divided into four steps (profiling, reservation, exploration and departure).

Both standards (mining and exploration) are divided into five levels, where the national legislation represents
the lowest C level. Companies applying either standard pledge to aim at least for the A level.

Exploring new technological solutions

Currently, there have been discussions whether the network should introduce a common digital platform
for the implementation and annual reporting of its standards. So far, however, mining companies have been
reluctant to embrace joint reporting devices as many of them already have individual digital systems.

The network is based on voluntary participation. It provides a platform for cooperation and discussions,
which have improved understanding between the mining sector and its stakeholders on concerns that
should be considered when planning mining operations.

90
CONCLUSIONS
shutterstock/hilmawan nurhatmadi
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

The world needs increasing amounts of metals and minerals to support its growing population and the
increasing production of renewable energy (such as batteries for electric cars and solar panels) to meet
the urgent global challenges of climate change. Amidst this growing demand, there has been pressure on
mining companies to enhance their economic value contribution to local communities (notably in developing,
resource rich countries) while also improving the management of their environmental and social impacts.
This is in part a response to frequent local community unrest and opposition to new mining projects as well
as serious accidents that have occurred in recent years, including recurrent failures of tailing dams. The
Brumadinho dam collapse in Brazil in January 2019 is a tragic reminder of the vulnerability of communities
and the environment to large-scale mining operations. The mining sector and its upstream and downstream
supply chains have been hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and will, as many other sectors, need to rethink
how they organize their operations and supply their materials and services. While difficult, this also brings an
opportunity to better integrate sustainability factors into mining operations.
The urge for greater and more meaningful reporting of the mining sector’s sustainability impacts comes
from a variety of sources, notably from local communities affected by mining activities, and investors that
put increasing value on ESG factors in their investment decision making. NGOs and consumers have also
been active advocates of increased responsibility of the sector. The SDGs have emerged as an important
element in encouraging the mining sector to enhance its sustainability efforts in collaboration with other
stakeholder groups, notably governments. To date, mining companies have taken a selective and relatively
shallow approach to integrating the SDGs into their sustainability reporting. This is not surprising as, although
businesses are crucial for achieving the goals, the SDGs are not meant as a framework for corporate
sustainability reporting but designed for reporting at the government level. Mining companies are lacking a
common understanding of how to holistically assess their sustainability performance, which is a precondition
to effectively reporting towards the SDGs. It is imperative that governments work with mining companies to
gain a clearer understanding of how to scale up progress towards achieving SDG targets of national, regional
and local priorities.
Sustainability reporting frameworks and standards have played an important role in framing and encouraging
sustainability reporting of mining companies. However, the number of reporting initiatives, and their different
approaches and target audiences, have contributed to confusion amongst mining companies and their
stakeholders. In addition, the lack of national regulation on sustainability reporting for the sector may have
played a role in the perceived lack of quality of reporting as mining companies are largely free to decide what
information they disclose. In the countries where there is regulation relevant to sustainability reporting in
mining, it is often limited to a specific impact such as GHG emissions or waste. There have been some recent
developments that provide hope for a move towards strengthened sustainability disclosures of the sector.
These include increased disclosure and third-party verification (assurance) requirements, for example in the
updated Principles of the ICMM, which now require reporting at the mine-site level. The launch of the first
audits of mines against IRMA’s global multi-stakeholder-governed standard for responsible mining in 2019
is another example of a recent positive development. The Responsible Mining Foundation is driving stronger
public disclosure of corporate-level and mine-site-level data on the management of economic, environmental,
social and governance issues. Further, the Foundation is encouraging continuous improvement in the
operationalization of the open data principles by mining companies (i.e. data disclosures in ways that make
the information accessible, useful and usable by other stakeholders).
Local procurement is emerging as an area where mining companies, communities and governments can find
mutual benefits, and where transparency through reporting is essential to mitigate risks (for example risk
related to corruption). In an effort to standardize the way mining companies report on their local procurement,
the initiative Mining Shared Value launched its reporting framework Mining Local Procurement Reporting
Mechanism (LPRM) in 2017. Governments have a key role to play in encouraging local procurement practices
of the mining sector, and help the sector and affected communities to be better prepared and resilient to meet
potential future health crisis that may impact or halt mining operations, as has been the case with COVID-19.
To support those efforts, governments can use the LPRM as a tool to gain a common understanding between
governments, mining companies, suppliers and other stakeholders, of the key disclosure areas to focus
and report on in local procurement. A wider uptake of the LPRM can also help standardize the way mining
companies and governments report on local procurement and help advance progress on SDG 8 on decent
work and economic growth. For its part, the EITI also has started to more proactively encourage reporting on
the procurement practices of extractive industry companies. At the EITI’s October 2019 Board Meeting, the
board agreed to start sharing disclosure practices on supply and service contracting.

94
 Conclusions

The mineral supply chain is highly complex and involves various companies, agents and intermediaries located
in different parts of the world. There has been growing public awareness of the human and environmental costs
associated with the metals and minerals used in products such as mobile phones or computers and pressure
on production companies to ensure that the materials they use have been responsibly sourced, i.e. that they
have not negatively impacted the environment and human rights. There are many challenges to obtaining
visibility on the origin of and sustainability impact associated with minerals and metals along the mineral
supply chain. For example, traders in the sector are largely small companies that are privately owned and
rarely disclose information on their activities, neither financial nor sustainability related. The increasing focus
on responsible mineral sourcing is an important element of enhancing progress on SDG 12 on responsible
consumption and production and is putting pressure on mining companies to demonstrate that they manage
their operations in an environmentally and socially responsible way. This is not only important for mining
companies to keep their social license to operate but also to maintain access to markets that are increasingly
sustainability conscious.
Contributing to improving the transparency of the origin and the impacts of complex mineral supply chains,
various VSIs have been developed, with different objectives and areas of focus. Some VSIs directly target the
mine-site, such as IRMA which offers certification that the mining process adheres to high environmental
and social standards. Other VSIs apply to all key actors in the supply chain (e.g. ASI). The ways in which VSIs
may directly impact the transparency of mining companies of their sustainability performance vary widely
depending on the focus and coverage of the VSIs. Governments have a key role to play in finding the best way
to work with an interplay of regulation and VSIs in their jurisdictions to achieve optimal results.
Although research has shown that government regulation is a key factor in improving sustainability
performance and transparency of the mining sector, governments have generally not been proactive in
developing specific policies and initiatives targeted at the sector. Rather, governments have introduced policies
that cover reporting of a wider group of companies, such as large companies or SOEs (both of which include
mining companies). There is an important opportunity for governments to play a stronger role in providing the
necessary direction and national context for sustainability reporting of the mining sector and more widely in
helping the sector in defining how to assess its sustainability in the national and local context. Governments
have a range of options such as introducing minimum requirements for sustainability reporting, interacting
with VSIs as noted above, providing financial support for impact measurement and endorsing initiatives of
the mining sector that have proven successful in advancing sustainability performance and reporting of the
sector.
Examples of countries that have taken concrete steps towards enhancing the sustainability management
and transparency of the mining sector include South Africa and Canada. The two countries have taken
widely different approaches, reflecting their respective international and national contexts. South Africa has
developed a number of regulations that aim at increasing and strengthening sustainability reporting of its
mining sector and has promoted integrated reporting, i.e. a more holistic view to reporting through integrating
sustainability factors with financial elements at the outset. In Canada, the government has endorsed the
Mining Association of Canada’s TSM program, which assists mining companies in enhancing its sustainability
performance, including through reporting. Other relative actions of the Canadian government include a CSR
Action Plan that focuses on advancing the sustainability of Canada’s mining companies abroad and references
and encourages various international sustainability guidance such as the OECD Guidelines for MNEs and the
GRI Standards for sustainability reporting.
As identified in this report, there is a lack of connection between EIAs, that are generally required in the
government approval process for mining projects, and the sustainability information disclosed by mining
companies. One factor of this lacking link is that sustainability reporting of mining companies largely focuses
on the corporate level (often including several mines), and not on the specific mining activities. An increased
focus on a more granular level of sustainability reporting at the mine-site level is an essential factor in enhancing
the quality and relevance of sustainability reporting of mining companies for their local and international
stakeholders. The engagement of the EITI with governments, in the context of the implementation of the
EITI Standard, has started to increasingly integrate environmental factors, in addition to a focus on financial
transparency of mining. This has been largely a result of NGO pressure to further address environmental
challenges through the EITI process. As governments rely on corporate reporting for much of its EITI related
disclosures, enhancing the link of EIAs and sustainability reporting may be an area where the EITI could play
an enhanced role.

95
Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends
RECOMMENDATIONS
xxxx

shutterstock/SARIN KUNTHONG
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

Recommendations for the international community and

governments
• It is recommended that governments play a more active role in guiding and/or directing the mining
sector in determining what aspects to focus on in their sustainability management and reporting at
the mine-site level, to better meet the needs of local communities, investors and other stakeholders.
As follow-up to the UNEA-4 resolution on Mineral Resource Governance, the international community,
including UNEA/UNEP, could support governments in this process.

• In framing policies and strategies for the approval of mining projects, governments should, at
the outset, integrate a review of environmental and social impacts alongside economic factors.
When the review of environmental and social aspects of proposed mining projects are conducted
by different government authorities (such as ministries) than the economic factors, effective
communication between the different approval authorities should be ensured during the approval
process to allow for a holistic view of a project’s net value at the national as well as local community
levels. Having a clearer understanding of the perceived positive and negative impacts of the project,
with associated action plans, will provide for a better understanding of the key areas that would need
specific management and should be highlighted in the mining company’s sustainability reporting.
The international community could support countries in that endeavor.

• Governments should play a role in enhancing the link between the outcomes of EIAs and the
eventual disclosure requirements of mining companies for their environmental and social
performance. This link may be advanced through encouragement of sustainability disclosures at
the mine site (project) level, which should reflect the key environmental and social risks identified and
proposed mitigation measures as well as eventual EIA related environmental and social management
plans. The enhanced connection between EIAs and sustainability reporting would also benefit from
a strengthened connection with national environmental, social and economic priorities related
to sustainable development and the SDGs at the national level (see more details in the following
recommendation).

• In line with the implementation of national action plans and reporting on the SDGs, governments are
encouraged to communicate to mining companies the key environmental and social issues that
relate to the SDGs, and other key environmental and social issues, at the national level, eventually
including reporting guidance on what Key Performance Indicators should, at a minimum, be included
in the reporting of mining companies.

• Governments should engage with the mining sector to provide the national environmental,
social and economic context (including challenges and opportunities) for mining projects,
including in the context of the SDGs. Depending on the national context, this engagement could
include communicating relevant data (e.g. on water quality and availability, pollution levels and
local employment and procurement opportunities) – using open data principles, that mining
companies can integrate into their sustainability strategy, management, and reporting. An active
engagement between governments and the mining sector is also encouraged for the development
and implementation of action plans for the SDGs.

• For countries where the trading of minerals and metals is an important sector, governments are
encouraged to engage in enhancing the transparency of the trading of minerals and metals,
eventually building on due diligence that is already required by law for financial institutions in the
country. This recommendation relates both to transparency of the financial aspects of trading as
well as increased transparency of the origin of minerals and metals in the context of responsible
mineral sourcing. In defining actions in this area governments are encouraged to refer to the relevant
work of the EITI. The international community could support countries in this work.

98
 Recommendations

• In order to enhance the quality and reliability of sustainability disclosures of mining companies,
governments should encourage or mandate third-party verification (assurance) of sustainability
reporting of mining companies, at the mine-site level. In this respect, governments can consider
referring to IRMA’s mine-site focused multi-stakeholder standard, which offers independent third-
party verification and certification for industrial-scale mining and promote IRMA certification of the
mines operating in their countries.

• It is recommended that the international community, including UNEP, engage in a discussion with
governments on how to move towards more coherent and harmonized VSIs to enhance their
effectiveness in achieving responsible mineral sourcing. Following these discussions governments
are encouraged to explore the impacts of VSIs operating in their jurisdictions and how VSIs could
eventually be used to complement, or integrate, into relevant regulations. Governments could also
explore whether VSIs could be used as platforms for engagement with businesses on topics where
the technical expertise of the VSI would be of value.

Recommendations for mining companies

• In terms of their sustainability reporting, mining companies may opt for reporting both at the local
(national or regional) and global level to meet the information needs of their different stakeholders.
However, sustainability disclosure data at the mine-site level should at least be available for the
communities affected by the mining project and other relevant stakeholders, such as the government
and investors.

• Mining companies should explore the use of modern technology for real-time monitoring of
environmental and health and safety data and adapt their communication to stakeholders accordingly.

• Mining companies are encouraged to report granularly on their environmental and social impacts at
the mine-site level, taking into account the needs of the affected communities, and obtain independent
third-party verification of the reported data.

Other recommendations
• In the upcoming creation of a new GRI Standard for the mining sector, GRI is advised to direct
their reporting guidance for mining companies to the mine-site level, eventually in addition to the
corporate level. This would be in line with the recent update of the ICMM Principles (that now focus on
performance at the mine-site level), which refer to the GRI Standards in their reporting requirements
for their member companies.

• Given the lack of a global understanding of what can be considered as environmentally and socially
sustainable mining operations, it is recommended that interested international organizations explore
the development of a holistic sustainability assessment standard with Key Performance Indicators
and alignment with the SDGs for the large-scale industrial mining sector, in collaboration with
governments, the mining sector and other relevant stakeholders.

99
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

REFERENCES
[1] UNEP, «Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 (GoF47),» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/responsible-industry/corporate-sustainability-0. [Accessed June 2020].
[2] UN Environment & Group of Friends of Paragraph 47, «Sustainability Reporting in the Financial Sector - A Governmental
Approach,» UNEP, 2016.
[3] UNEP & the Group of Friends of Paragraph 47, «Evaluating National Policies on Corporate Sustainability Reporting,»
2015. [Online]. Available: [Link]
policies_on_corporate_sustainable_reporting_-[Link]?sequence=3&amp%3BisAllowed=.
[4] United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme, «Resolution on Mineral Resource
Governance,» 11-15 March 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]?sequence=3&isAllowed=y. [Accessed June 2020].
[5] United Nations, “Sustainable Development Goal 12,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Accessed June 2020].
[6] OECD, «OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High Risk
Areas: Third Edition,» OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[7] Oberle, B. et al., «Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want,» Internatinal Reousource
Panel. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 2019.
[8] OECD, «Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060: Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences,» OECD
Publishing, Paris, 2019.
[9] The World Bank, «The Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future,» 2017. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[Link].
[10] IEA, «Press Release: The Covid-19 crisis is hurting but not halting global growth in renewable power capacity,» 20
May 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
renewable-power-capacity .
[11] IISD, «Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF): Global Trends in
Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining: A review of key numbers and issues,» 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
sites/default/files/publications/[Link].
[12] STRADE, «European Policy Brief - Strategic Dialogue on Sustainable Raw Materials for Europe: The artisanal and small-
scale mining (ASM) sector and its importance for EU cooperation with resource-rich developing and emerging countries,»
2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[13] OECD, «COVID-19 – Call to Action for Responsible Mineral Supply Chains,» 2020. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/[Link].
[14] World Gold Council, «Responsible gold mining and value distribution: A global assessment of the economic value created
and distributed by members of the World Gold Council,» 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[15] UNEP & GRID-Arendal, «Mine Tailing Storage: Safety is no Accident,» 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/production/documents/:s_document/371/original/RRA_MineTailings_lores.
pdf?1510660693.
[16] Natural Resource Governance Institute, «The Resource Curse The Political and Economic Challenges of Natural Resource
Wealth,» 2015. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[17] The Wall Street Journal, «News Article: The Hidden Deaths of Mining,» 31 December 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/articles/the-hidden-deaths-of-mining-11577825555.
[18] ICMM, «Safety Data: Benchmarking progress of ICMM company members in 2019,» 2020. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/website/publications/pdfs/health-and-safety/data-2019/[Link].
[19] DW, «News Article: Mining projects foment unrest across Latin America,» 16 September 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/en/mining-projects-foment-unrest-across-latin-america/a-50443084.

100
 References

[20] Biosecurity New Zealand, «Unpacking SLO and partnerships: developing rubrics for guidance and assessment,» 2019.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
Social-Licence-to-Opera..-.pdf.
[21] ICMM, “ICMM: Our History,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
reviews/our-history.
[22] IIED, “Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD),” [Online]. Available: [Link]
minerals-sustainable-development-mmsd.
[23] ICMM, “ICMM Toronto Declaration,” 2002. [Online]. Available: [Link]
commitments/[Link].
[24] McNab, K., Keenan, J., Brereton, D., Kim, J., Kunanayagam, R. and T. Blathwayt, «Beyond Voluntarism: The Changing Role
of Corporate Social Investment in the Extractive Resources Sector,» 2012.
[25] KPMG, «The Road Ahead: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017,» 2017. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
pdf.
[26] Alliance for Corporate Transparency, «The Alliance for Corporate Transparency Research Report 2019: An analysis of
the sustainability reports of 1000 companies pursuant to the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive,» 2020. [Online].
Available: [Link]
Corporate_Transparency-[Link].
[27] Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, «2018 Global Sustaianble Investment Review,» 2018. [Online]. Available: http://
[Link]/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GSIR_Review2018.[Link].
[28] RBC Global Asset Management, «2018 Responsible Investing Survey: Executive Summary,» 2018. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[29] Eco Business, «Article: Sustainability reporting gives local SMEs the chance to go big,» 15 September 2016. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[30] The CPA Journal, «Article: The Current State of Sustainability Reporting: A Work in Progress,» July 2018. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[31] Wu, S. R., Shao, C. and Chen, J., «Review Approaches on the Screening Methods for Materiality in Sustainability
Reporting,» 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[32] B. Szczepanik, «Article: New Metrics: Quantifying Sustainability Impacts and Setting Meaningful Goals,» 11 November
2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
setting-meaningful-goals.
[33] UNCTAD, «Article: More companies urged to report how they help meet SDGs,» 31 October 2019. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[34] Responsible Mining Foundation, «Responsible Mining Index 2020: Key Findings,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/en/key-findings.
[35] Ayuk, E.T. et al, «Mineral Resource Governance in the 21st Century: Gearing extractive industries towards sustainable
development,» UNEP, Nairobi, 2020.
[36] True Footprint, «The State of Mining Sustainability,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[37] Industry Europe, «Article: Research Insight - Women Miners,» 27 April 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
com/research-insight-women-miners/ .
[38] Responsible Mining Foundation, «Responsible Mining Index 2020: Leading Practices,» 2020. [Online]. Available:
[Link] .
[39] European Union, «Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,» 22 October 2014. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[40] European Commission, «Guidelines on non-financial reporting,» 5 July 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0705(01)&from=EN.
[41] European Commission, «Guidelines on reporting climate-related information,» 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/finance/docs/policy/190618-climate-related-information-reporting-guidelines_en.pdf.
[42] Van der Lugt, C. T., van de Wijs, P.P. & D. Petrovics, «Carrots & Sticks 2020 - Sustainability reporting policy: Global trends
in disclosure as the ESG agenda goes mainstream,» Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the University of Stellenbosch
Business School (USB), 2020.

101
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

[43] GRI, UNEP, USB, «Carrots & Sticks,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[44] Natural Resource Governance Institute, «Beyond Revenues: Measuring and Valuing Environmental and Social Impacts
in Extractive Sector Governance,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
documents/beyond-revenues_measuring-and-valuing_environmental-[Link].
[45] Natural Resource Governance Institute, “State-Owned Companies,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
resource-governance-index/report/state-owned-companies.
[46] The World Bank, «Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises: A Toolkit,» 2014. [Online]. Available: http://
[Link]/curated/en/228331468169750340/pdf/Corporate-governance-of-state-owned-
[Link].
[47] D. M. K. Böhling, «Sustainability reporting in the mining sector: Managing for legitimacy,» 2015. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
legitimacy.
[48] EY, «Top 10 business risks and opportunities – 2020,» 24 September 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
en_gl/mining-metals/10-business-risks-facing-mining-and-metals.
[49] Centre for Environmental Rights and Lawyers for Human Rights, «Mining and your Community: Know your Environmental
Rights,» 2014. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[50] ASX Corporate Governance Council, «Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations: 4th Edition,» February
2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[51] Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, «The Importance of Nonfinancial Performance to Investors,»
25 April 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
performance-to-investors/ .
[52] Morningstar, «2019 ESG Proxy Voting Trends: More support for ESG issues, but the largest firms lag,» 13 February
2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
Voting_021320.pdf?utm_source=eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=20694.
[53] Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, «Standards Overview,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
overview/.
[54] IIRC, «The International Integrated Reporting Framework,» 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
content/uploads/2013/12/[Link].
[55] Hiyate, A., «Article: 5 ESG trends to watch: Investor focus on ESG continues to intensify,» Canadian Mining Journal, 1
April 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
on-esg-continues-to-intensify/.
[56] Szala, G., «Big Investors Push SEC to Standardize ESG Reporting for Companies,» Think Advisor, 26 October 2018.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
for-companies/?slreturn=20200023064319.
[57] BlackRock, «A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter .
[58] The Church of England, «Investor Mining and Tailings Safety Initiative,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/investor-mining-tailings-safety-initiative.
[59] International Council on Mining & Metals, UN Environment Programme and Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI),
«Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management,» August 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
wp-content/uploads/2020/08/[Link].
[60] McKinsey & Company, «Article: More than values: The value-based sustainability reporting that investors want,» 7 August
2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
the-value-based-sustainability-reporting-that-investors-want.
[61] International Council on Mining & Metals, «ICMM: About us,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
about-us. [Accessed July 2020].
[62] International Council on Mining & Metals, «ICMM: Mining Principle 10. Stakeholder Engagement,» 2020. [Online].
Available: [Link] .
[63] Global Reporting Initiative, «Mining and Metals Sector Disclosures,» 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/Documents/ResourceArchives/[Link].

102
 References

[64] Global Reporting Initiative, “GRI Sector Program,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
program-and-standards-review/gri-sector-program/. [Accessed July 2020].
[65] Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, «Standards Overview,» 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
standards-overview/. [Accessed July 2020].
[66] Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, «Metals & Mining Sustainability Accounting Standard,» 2018. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[67] Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, «Tailings Management in Extractives - Standard-Setting Project,» 11 June
2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[68] The Mining Association of Canada, «Towards Sustaianble Mining,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
sustainable-mining/ . [Accessed July 2020].
[69] IFC, «Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability,» 2012. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/wps/wcm/connect/24e6bfc3-5de3-444d-be9b-226188c95454/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.
pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=jkV-X6h .
[70] Responsible Mining Foundation, «Responsible Mining Index Framework 2020,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/app/uploads/2019/09/RMI_Framework2020_EN_web.pdf.
[71] OECD, «OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,» 2011. [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/10.1787/9789264115415-en.
[72] OECD, «OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct,» 2018. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/[Link] .
[73] United Nations, «Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,» 2011. [Online]. Available: [Link]
documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf.
[74] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, «Free Prior and Informed Consent An indigenous peoples’
right and a good practice for local communities: Manual for Project Practitioners,» 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/3/[Link].
[75] World Economic Forum, «White Paper: Voluntary Responsible Mining Initiatives: A Review,» 2016. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[76] Topple, C. et al., «Corporate Sustainability Assessments: MNE engagement with sustainable development and the
SDGs,» 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[77] Virgone, K.M., Ramirez-Andreotta, M., Mainhagu J. et al., «Effective Integrated Frameworks for Assessing Mining
Sustainability,» 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[78] Center for Sustainable Organizations, “Innovating for Sustainability Accounting & Multicapitalism in the World,” [Online].
Available: [Link]
[79] Life Cycle Initiative, One Planet Network, International Resource Panel, «SCP Hotspot Analysis,» 2018. [Online]. Available:
[Link] [Accessed August 2020].
[80] OECD, «Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward,» 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/10.1787/9789264268104-en.
[81] OECD, «OECD Legal Instruments: Recommendation of the Council on Open Government,» 2017. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
751648841.1537891795.
[82] Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, «EITI Open data policy,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
eiti-open-data-policy.
[83] FAO, «Sustainability Pathways: Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA),» 2013. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[84] Mori Junior, R., Franks, D.M. and Ali, S.H., «Designing Sustainability Certification for Impact: Analysis of the design
characteristics of 15 sustainability standards in the mining industry,» Center for Social Responsibility in Mining,
University of Queensland, Brisbane, 2015.
[85] Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, «Promoting Clarity and Compatibility in the Sustainability Landscape: GRI
and SASB announce collaboration,» 12 July 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
compatibility-in-the-sustainability-landscape-gri-and-sasb-announce-collaboration/. [Accessed August 2020].
[86] ICMM, «Mining Principles: Performance Expectations,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
publications/pdfs/mining-principles/[Link].

103
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

[87] Global Reporting Initiative, «GRI Standards: GRI 101: Foundation,» 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/standards/media/1036/[Link].
[88] ICMM, «ICMM’s Mining Principles: An Introduction,» February 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
publications/pdfs/mining-principles/introduction_mining-[Link].
[89] The Mining Association of Canada, «TSM 101: A Primer,» April 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
uploads/2019/07/[Link].
[90] Potts, J., Wenban-Smith, M., Turley, L. and Lynch, M., «State of Sustainability Initiatives Review: Standards and the
Extractives Economy,» Internatoinal Institute for Sustainable Development, 2018. [Online]. Available: ttps://[Link].
org/sites/default/files/publications/[Link].
[91] Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, «IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining: IRMA-STD-001,» June 2018. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[92] Chen, P., Ballou, B., Grenier, J. H and Heitger, D. L., «Sustainability assurance’s link to reporting quality,» Journal of
Accountancy, 10 October 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[93] Global Reporting Initiative, «The External Assurance of Sustainability Reporting,» 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/resourcelibrary/[Link].
[94] KPMG, «The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013,» 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/12/[Link] .
[95] UNEP, «Raising the Bar - Advancing Environmental Disclosure in Sustainability Reporting,» 2015. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
Disclosure_in_Sustainability_Reporting-2015UNEP_Raising_the_Bar_2015.[Link]?sequence=3&amp%3BisAllowed=.
[96] Global Reporting Initiative, «GRI Standards: GRI 102: General Disclosures,» 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/standards/media/1037/[Link].
[97] C. Jamasmie, «Article: ICMM updates mine-community relations guide to reflect investors’ pressure,» [Link],
10 December 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
reflect-investors-pressure/.
[98] International Council on Mining & Metals, «Assurance and Validation Procedure: Performance Expectations,» 2020.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[99] C. Jamasmie, «Article: ICMM steps up game for miners with membership requirements update,» [Link], 14
February 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
requirements-update/.
[100] Mining Technology, «Cultivating responsible mining in Canada and abroad,» 26 March 2018. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/features/cultivating-responsible-mining-canada-abroad/.
[101] Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, «IRMA History,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
history/ .
[102] Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, «10 Facts About IRMA,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
about/facts/.
[103] Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, «IRMA About Us,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
about-us/.
[104] ICMM, “Demonstrating value: A guide to responsible sourcing,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
publications/pdfs/responsible-sourcing/demonstrating-value.
[105] World Gold Council, «Responsible gold mining and value distribution: A global assessment of the economic value
created and distributed by members of the World Gold Council,» October 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
documents/[Link].
[106] Kaplan, Z. and McKenzie, W., «Article: COVID-19 Demands New Thinking on Local Content in Oil, Gas and Mining,» DAI,
12 April 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
local-content-in-oil-gas-and-mining.
[107] Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Sustainable Development Solutions Network, UNDP, World Economic
Forum, «White Paper: Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Atlas,» 2016.
[108] International Institute for Sustainable Development, «Local Content Policies in the Mining Sector: Scaling up Local
Procurement,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].

104
 References

[109] Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, «EITI and Opportunities for Increasing Local Content Transparency,» March
2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
pdf.
[110] Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, «Blog: Three takeaways from Addis Ababa,» 23 October 2019. [Online].
Available: [Link] [Accessed August 2020].
[111] Responsible Mining Foundation, «Responsible Mining Index 2020: Results - Economic Development: A.01 National
and Supranational Procurement,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
thematic/315.
[112] Mining Shared Value, an initiative of Engineers Without Borders Canada, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), «Mining Local Procurement Reporting Mechanism,» July 2017. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/static/54d667e5e4b05b179814c788/t/5b085f33575d1fb52bc25e30/1527275323624/v1-
[Link].
[113] K., Kickler and Franken, G., “Sustainability Schemes for Mineral Resources: A Comparative Overview,” [Online]. Available:
[Link]
pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
[114] European Commission, «Conflict Minerals Regulation: The regulation explained,» December 2017. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[115] Responsible Minerals Initiative, «FAQ,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
[116] OECD, «OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk
Areas: Third Edition,» OECD Publishing, 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[117] OECD, «OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk
Areas,» OECD, [Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[118] OECD, “OECD Brochure: A Global Standard: Towards responsible mineral supply chains,” [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/Brochure_OECD-[Link].
[119] Afrewatch and Amnesty International, «This is What We Die For,» 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
download/Documents/[Link].
[120] Banza Lubaba Nkulu, C., Casas, L., Haufroid, V. et al., «Sustainability of artisanal mining of cobalt in DR Congo,» 2018.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
[121] Faber, B., Krause, B. and De La Sierra, R.S., «Artisanal Mining, Livelihoods, and Child Labor in the Cobalt Supply Chain
of the Democratic Republic of Congo,» May 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
projects/179/CEGA_Report_v2.pdf.
[122] SOMO, «Article: Cobalt blues: Environmental pollution and human rights violations in Congolese cobalt mines,» European
Coalition for Corporate Justice, 18 April 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
environmental-pollution-and-human-rights-violations-in-congolese-cobalt-mines.
[123] OECD, «Interconnected supply chains: a comprehensive look at due diligence challenges and opportunities sourcing
cobalt and copper from the Democratic Republic of the Congo,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/Interconnected-supply-chains-a-comprehensive-look-at-due-diligence-challenges-and-opportunities-sourcing-
[Link].
[124] US Securities and Exchange Commission, «Press Release: SEC Adopts Rule for Disclosing Use of Conflict Minerals,» 22
August 2012. [Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[125] US Securities and Exchange Commission, «Fact Sheet: Disclosing the Use of Conflict Minerals,» 14 March 2017. [Online].
Available: [Link] . [Accessed July 2020].
[126] The Guardian, «Article: Proposed Trump executive order would allow US firms to sell ‘conflict minerals’,» 8 February
2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
mineral-regulations. [Accessed July 2020].
[127] Responsible Sourcing Network, «Mining the Disclosures 2019: An Investor Guide to Conflict Minerals and Cobalt Reporting
in Year Six,» 6 December 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
t/5dee7d1b9d16d153cba70a04/1575911082732/Mining+the+Disclosures+[Link].
[128] European Union, «European Union Regulation 2017/821 on Mineral Supply Due Diligence,» 19 May 2017. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[129] European Commission, «Conflicts Minerals Regulation Explained,» 13 December 2017. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/trade/policy/in-focus/conflict-minerals-regulation/regulation-explained/. [Accessed July 2020].

105
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

[130] United Nations, «Sustainable Development Goals: Goal 16: Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies,» [Online].
Available: [Link] [Accessed August 2020].
[131] World Gold Council, «Responsible Gold Mining Principles,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
gold-supply/responsible-gold/responsible-gold-mining-principles.
[132] World Gold Council, «Conflict-Free Gold Standard,» October 2012. [Online]. Available: [Link]
default/files/documents/Conflict_Free_Gold_Standard_English.pdf .
[133] Responsible Minerals Initiative, «Minerals Due Diligence,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/minerals-due-diligence/. [Accessed July 2020].
[134] Responsible Minerals Initiative, «RMAP Assessment Introduction,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/responsible-minerals-assurance-process/ . [Accessed July 2020].
[135] Aluminium Stewardship Initiative, «ASI Performance Standard (V2),» December 2017. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/asi-standards/asi-performance-standard/.
[136] Aluminium Stewardship Initiative, «ASI Assurance Manual,» December 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/asi-standards/asi-assurance-manual/ .
[137] Responsible Jewellery Council, «Responsible Jewellery Council Code of Practices,» April 2019. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[138] Better Coal, “Bettercoal Code,” [Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[139] Better Coal, “Better Coal Assurance System,” [Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed
July 2020].
[140] Fair Stone, «International Standard for the Natural Stone Industry (Fourth Edition),» October 2010. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[141] International Cyanide Management Institute, «About the Cyanide Code,» 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/about-cyanide-code. [Accessed July 2020].
[142] FT, «Article: Commodity traders have nothing to fear from transparency,» 25 March 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/content/d80a686a-4cc2-11e9-bbc9-6917dce3dc62. [Accessed July 2020].
[143] International Institute for Sustainable Development, «Commodity Trading: Understanding the tax-related challenges for
home and host countries,» May 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[144] Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, «Transparency in the First Trade,» June 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/files/documents/eiti_commodity_trading_transparency_may2019_web_0.pdf.
[145] Noble Group, «Sustainability Report 2019,» May 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
content/uploads/2020/07/Noble_SR2019_0721-[Link]. [Accessed July 2020].
[146] Glencore, “What we do,” 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Accessed July 2020].
[147] Glencore, «Sustainability Report 2019,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
432a-b4b3-6fe133488bb8/[Link]. [Accessed July 2020].
[148] Institute for Human Rights and Business, «The Swiss Commodities Trading Industry: A Mapping Study,» March 2017.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
Sector_-_A_Mapping_Study_March_2017.pdf .
[149] London Metal Exchange, “LME Responsible Sourcing,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
Responsibility/Responsible-sourcing. [Accessed July 2020].
[150] Responsible Mining Foundation, «Responsible Extractives Trading,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/ret/. [Accessed August 2020].
[151] United Nations, «Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,» [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/post2015/transformingourworld. [Accessed July 2020].
[152] United Nations, «A Un framework for the immediate socio-economic response to COVID-19,» April 2020. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[Link].
[153] United Nations, «Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform: Stakeholder Engagement: Business and
Industry,» [Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed
July 2020].

106
 References

[154] Agarwal, N., Gneiting, U. and Mhlanga, R., «Raising the Bar: Rethinking the role of business in the Sustainable Development
Goals,» 2017.
[155] PWC, «From promise to reality: Does business really care about the SDGs? And what needs to happen to turn words into
action,» 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[156] United Nations, «Sustainable Development Goals: Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns,»
[Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed July
2020].
[157] UNEP and UNCTAD, «Methodology for SDG indicator 12.6.1,» May 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/media/docs/projects/draft_proposal_methodology_12_6_1_may_2019.pdf .
[158] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development , «Guidance on core indicators for entity reporting on contribution
towards implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
PublicationsLibrary/diae2019d1_en.pdf .
[159] Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, «Industry Guide to the Sustainable Development Goals,» June 2020. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[160] Global Reporting Initiative, UN Global Compact and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, «SDG
Compass,» 2015. [Online]. Available: [Link]
Guide_2015.pdf.
[161] UN Environment, «Assessing Environmental Impacts- A Global Review of Legislation,» 2018. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[162] Woodroffe, N. and Grice, T., «Beyond Revenues: Measuring and Valuing Environmental and Socail Impacts in
Extractive Sector Governance,» Natural Resource Governance Institute, September 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/sites/default/files/documents/beyond-revenues_measuring-and-valuing_environmental-
[Link].
[163] D. Lawrence, “Integrating Sustainability and Environmental Impact Assessment,” Environmental Management, vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 23-42, 1997.
[164] International Institute for Sustainable Development, «2018 IGF Annual Report,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/sites/default/files/publications/[Link].
[165] United Nations, «Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development,» 2002. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[166] Intergovernmental Forum on Mining Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development, «Introduction - About IGF,» [Online].
Available: [Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[167] Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development, «IGF Mining Policy Framework:
Mining and Sustainable Development,» October 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
uploads/2018/08/[Link].
[168] Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development, «About,» [Online]. Available:
[Link] . [Accessed July 2020].
[169] Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development, «Assessments and Reports,»
[Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[170] Publish What You Pay, “Article: Environmental Reporting: Key to Transparency,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/pwyp-news/environmental-reporting-key-to-transparency/ . [Accessed July 2020].
[171] Fundeps, “More than 100 organizations are calling on EITI to publish environmental information,” [Online]. Available:
[Link] .
[Accessed July 2020].
[172] International Institute for Sustainable Development, «Traceability Systems: A Powerful Tool for Agricultural Voluntary
Sustainability Standards,» December 2015. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[173] Vidal, O., Goffé, B., Arndt, N., “Metals for a low-carbon society,” Nature Geoscience, vol. 6, pp. 894-896, 2013.
[174] Fonseca, A., McAllister, M. L., & Fitzpatrick, P., “Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive
critique of the GRI approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 84, pp. 70-83, 2014.
[175] Minerals Council South Africa, «Mining in SA,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
. [Accessed July 2020].

107
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

[176] Brand South Africa, «SA’s key economic sectors,» 2 January 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
com/investments-immigration/business/investing/economic-sectors-agricultural . [Accessed July 2020].
[177] Institute of Directors in South Africa, «King IV: Report on Corporate Goverancne for South Africa 2016,» 2016.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
E3A007F15A5A/IoDSA_King_IV_Report_-_WebVersion.pdf.
[178] Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), «FTSE/JSE Responsible Investment Index,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/events/ftsejse-responsible-investment-index. [Accessed July 2020].
[179] Institute of Directors Southern Africa, «Code for Responsible Investing in South Africa,» 2011. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/[Link]/resource/resmgr/crisa/crisa_19_july_2011.pdf .
[180] South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs, «National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (39/2004):
National Greenhous Gas Emission Reporting Regulations,» Gazette No. 40762, 4 April 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/sites/default/files/legislations/nemaqa39of2004_nationalgreenhousegasemissionreporting_
gn40762_0.pdf.
[181] South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs, «Technical Guidelines for Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Industry,» April 2017. [Online]. Available: [Link]
files/legislations/technicalguidelinesformrvofemissionsbyindustry_0.pdf .
[182] South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs, «Promotion of Access to Information: Act 2 of 2000,» February
2000. [Online]. Available: [Link]
information_act.pdf.
[183] South African Government, «The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,» 1996. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/legislation/constitution/[Link] . [Accessed July 2020].
[184] Samcodes Standards Committee, «About the SAMREC Code,» 22 January 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/samcode-ssc/samrec . [Accessed July 2020].
[185] Samcodes Standards Committee, “About SAMCODES,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
about-samcodes . [Accessed July 2020].
[186] Kiri, S., «Mining in Colombia - Clawing its way back,» Proactive Investors, 11 March 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/companies/news/216214/[Link].
[Accessed July 2020].
[187] Colombia Risk Analysis, «Mining in Colombia: Sector Risk Monthly,» 15 May 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/post/mining-in-colombia-sector-risk-monthly . [Accessed July 2020].
[188] The Congress of Colombia, “Law 685 of 2001. Official Gazette No. 44.545,” 8 September 2001. [Online]. Available: http://
[Link]/senado/basedoc/ley_0685_2001.html.
[189] Government of Colombia, «Decreto 1076 de 2015 Sector Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible,» 2015. [Online]. Available:
[Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[190] Government of Colombia, «Article (in Spanish): Abecé del Decreto 2046 de 2019, que busca impulsar las empresas BIC
en Colombia,» 12 November 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]. [Accessed July 2020].
[191] Grupo Bancolombia, «Article (in Spanish): Sociedades BIC: el camino para ser una empresa sostenible,» 27 February
2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
sociedades-bic-empresas-sostenibles . [Accessed July 2020].
[192] Government of Colombia: Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, «Informe de Gestión 2019 (in Spanish),»
2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[193] Universidad Externado de Colombia, «Blog - Departamento de Derecho del Medio Ambiente (in Spanish): CONPES
3918 de 2018 «Estrategia para la implementación de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) en Colombia»,»
9 April 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
implementacion-de-los-objetivos-de-desarrollo-sostenible-ods-en-colombia/ .
[194] Government of Colombia: National Planning Department, «The Private Sector and its Contribution to the SDGs: A Journey
to Data Gathering Through Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Colombia,» 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/27p7ivvbl4bs/8XJw3xSMMMgw0qcYYiKsU/a4e9a5f4ee6128363faef7afe7bc395b/Private_Sector_and_
Its_Contribution_to_the_SDGs-_A_Journey_to_Data_Gathering_and_Reporting_in_Colombia_DIGITAL.pdf.
[195] Global Reporting Initiative, «Measuring impact: private sector sustainability data for achieving the SDGs,» September 18
2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link] . [Accessed July 2020].

108
 References

[196] UNDP Colombia, «Colombia lanza SDG Corporate Tracker, una iniciativa que mide la contribución del sector privado en
los ODS,» 3 April 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link] . [Accessed July 2020].
[197] Federal Council of Switzerland, «The Swiss commodities sector: current situation and outlook,» 30 November 2018.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
[198] Switzerlands’ Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Federal Department of Finance FDF and Federal Department
of Economic Affairs, Education and Research EAER, «Background Report: Commodities,» 27 March 2013. [Online].
Available: [Link]
Rohstoffe/Grundlagenbericht%[Link]/Background_report_Commodities.pdf.
[199] Switzeraland’s Federal Departement of Foreign Affairs FDFA and the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education
and Research EAER - State Secretariat for Econmomic Affairs SECO, «The Commodity Trading Sector: Guidance on
Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,» 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/dam/seco/en/dokumente/Publikationen_Dienstleistungen/Publikationen_Formulare/Aussenwirtschaft/
Broschueren/Guidance_on_Implementing_the_UN_Guiding_Principles_on_Business_and_Human_Rights.pdf.
[Link]/Guidance_on_Implementing_t.
[200] Switzerland’s Federal Department of Economic Affaris, Education and Reserach EAER - State Secretariat for Economic
Affairs SECO, «Better Gold Initative for Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (Factsheet),» April 2020. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[Link]/Factsheet%20Better%20Gold%20Initiative%20for%20Artisanal%20and%20Small-Scale%[Link].
[201] Better Gold Initiative, «About Better Gold: Goals and Achievements,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
bgi/objectives/ . [Accessed July 2020].
[202] Responsible Mining Foundation, «RMI Report 2020,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/rmi-report-2020/. [Accessed July 2020].
[203] Federal Council of Switzerland, «La responsabilité sociétale des entreprises: Position et plan d’action du Conseil fédéral
concernant la responsabilité des entreprises à l’égard de la société et de l’environnement,» 1 April 2015. [Online].
Available: [Link]
Weitere_Informationen/[Link]/03%20Beilage_CSR-Positionspapier-f_1_4_2015-[Link].
[204] Federal Council of Switzerland, «Les entreprises suisses appelées à rendre compte du respect des droits humains
et des normes environnementales,» 14 August 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
documentation/communiques/[Link]. [Accessed July 2020].
[205] The Mining Association of Canada, «Facts & Figures 2019: The State of Canada’s Mining Industry,» 2019. [Online].
Available: [Link] .
[206] The Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan, «Mining in Canada,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
content/mining-canada-0. [Accessed July 2020].
[207] Environment Canada, «Environmental Code of Practice for Metal Mines,» 2009. [Online]. Available: [Link]
ca/content/dam/eccc/migration/main/lcpe-cepa/documents/codes/mm/[Link] .
[208] Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, «The Minerals and Metals Policy of the Government of
Canada: Partnerships for Sustainable Development,» 1996. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/files/mineralsmetals/pdf/mms-smm/poli-poli/pdf/[Link].
[209] Canadian government, «The Candian Minerals and Metals Plan,» March 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/en/content/ac[Link]
feb_29_2020-a_en.pdftion-plan-2020-introducing-pan-canadian-initiatives-march-2020.
[210] Global Affairs Canada, «Responsible Business Conduct Abroad,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/[Link]?lang=eng. [Accessed July
2020].
[211] Natural Resources Canada, «Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA),» 26 March 2020. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
measures-act/18180 . [Accessed July 2020].
[212] Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, «Supporters: Canada,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
canada. [Accessed July 2020].
[213] Centre for Sustainability and Excellence, «Sustainability Reporting Trends in North America,» 2017. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[Link].

109
 Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector - Current Status and Future Trends

[214] Global Affairs Canada, «Canada’s Enhanced Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy to Strengthen Canada’s Extractive
Sector Abroad,» 31 July 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/[Link]?lang=eng . [Accessed July 2020].
[215] KPMG, «Mexico: Country mining guide,» 2013. [Online]. Available: [Link]
pdf/2015/05/mexico-mining-%[Link].
[216] Deloitte, «Mining industry in Mexico,» May 2012. [Online]. Available: [Link]
mx/Documents/energy-resources/[Link] .
[217] Mexico Business Publications, «Mexico Mining Review 2019,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
mexicobusinesspublishing/docs/mmr_2019_book_complete .
[218] Reuters, «Investment in Mexican mining seen rising after four-year downturn,» 1 September 2017. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
downturn-idUSKCN1BC61V . [Accessed July 2020].
[219] Commission for Environmental Cooperation, «Taking Stock: North American Pollutant Releases and Transfers,» 2018.
[Online]. Available: [Link]
[220] Government of Mexico, «Ley General Para la Prevención y Gestión Integral de los Residuos,» 2015. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
INTEGRAL_DE_LOS_RESIDUOS.pdf.
[221] Government of Mexico, «Programa Nacional de Auditoría Ambiental,» 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
cms/uploads/attachment/file/459960/BROCHURE_2019.pdf.
[222] Government of Mexico, «Ley de Aguas Nacionales,» 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
pdf/16_060120.pdf .
[223] PR Newswire, «Article: Mexican Stock Exchange Launches its Sustainability Index, the Third of its Kind in the World,» 21
December 2011. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]. [Accessed July 2020].
[224] Grupo BMV, “Issuers Information,” [Online]. Available: [Link] .
[Accessed 15 February 2020].
[225] NS Energy, «Profiling nine of the biggest mining companies in India,» 18 February 2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/features/major-mining-companies-in-india/. [Accessed July 2020].
[226] WorldAtlas, «The Top 10 Coal Producers Worldwide,» 14 June 2020. [Online]. Available: [Link]
articles/[Link] . [Accessed July 2020].
[227] Government of India: Ministry of Corporate Affairs, «India’s Companies Act on CSR - Section 135,» [Online]. Available:
[Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[228] Securities and Exchange Board of India, «Format for Business Responsibility Report (BRR),» 4 November 2015. [Online].
Available: [Link] .
[Accessed July 2020].
[229] The Times of India, «Article: Business responsibility reports mandatory for top 1,000 listed companies: Sebi,» 20 November
2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
mandatory-for-top-1000-listed-companies-sebi/articleshow/[Link] . [Accessed July 2020].
[230] Government of India: Ministry of Corporate Affairs, «National Guideliens on Responsible Business Conduct,» December
2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[231] Wu, G., and Li, Y., «Mining in China: Overview,» Thomson Reuters, 1 May 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/w-011-1348?transitionType=Default&contextData=([Link])&firstPage=true&bhcp=1.
[Accessed July 2020].
[232] STRADE, «European Policy Brief - China’s approach towards responsible sourcing,» 2018. [Online]. Available: https://
[Link]/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/STRADE_PB_03_2018_China_responsible_sourcing.pdf.
[233] China Labour Bulletin, «Article: Coal mine accidents and deaths in China decline in 2019,» 23 January 2020. [Online].
Available: [Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[234] Dezan Shira & Associates, «Corporate Sustainability in China – New Issue of China Briefing Magazine,» 31 December
2019. [Online]. Available: [Link]
briefing-magazine/ . [Accessed July 2020].
[235] Government of China, «The 13th Five Year Plan for Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic
of China (2016-2020),» March 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].

110
 References

[236] International Institute for Sustainable Development , «China Releases National Plan to Implement SDGs,» 17 October
2016. [Online]. Available: [Link] [Accessed July
2020].
[237] World Business Council for Sustainable Development, «The Reporting Exchange: An overview of sustainability and
corporate reporting in China,» 3028. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[238] Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative, «ESG Disclosure Guidance Database,» [Online]. Available: [Link]
org/esg-guidance-database/#guidance. [Accessed July 2020].
[239] Financial Times, «Article: Chinese companies get to grips with tougher ESG disclosures,» 13 January 2020. [Online].
Available: [Link] . [Accessed July 2020].
[240] Investopedia, «9 Biggest Mining Companies,» 2020, 23 February. [Online]. Available: [Link]
insight/chinese-mining-companies/ . [Accessed July 2020].
[241] KPMG, GRI, UNEP, Center for Corporate Governance in Africa, «Carrots & Sticks: Global trends in sustainability reporting
regulation and policy,» 2016. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link].
[242] GoldenBee, «GoldenBee Research on CSR Reporting in China 2018 released,» 27 December 2018. [Online]. Available:
[Link] [Accessed July 2020].
[243] Dong, S. and Xu, L., “The impact of explicit CSR regulation: Evidence from China’s mining firms,” Journal of Applied
Accounting Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 237-258, 2016.
[244] China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Expoerters, Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit , «Guidelines for Social Responsibility in Outbound Mining Investments,» 2015. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[245] Global Witness, «Global Witness Welcomes Progressive New Chinese Mineral Supply Chain Guidelines,» 2 December
2015. [Online]. Available: [Link]
new-chinese-mineral-supply-chain-guidelines/ . [Accessed July 2020].
[246] The Mining Association of Canada, “TSM Guiding Principles,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
mining/tsm-guiding-principles/. [Accessed July 2020].
[247] The Mining Association of Canada, “TSM Verification,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
mining/how-tsm-works/tsm-verification/. [Accessed July 2020].
[248] Government of Finland: Ministry of Employment and the Economy , «Making Finland a leader in the sustainable extractive
industry - action plan,» 2013. [Online].
Available: [Link] Making+Finland+a+leader+in+the+sustainable+
extractive+industry+[Link].

111