- Half of the companies evaluated now report on the way they respond to human rights allegations.
- While companies from developed markets have slightly progressed, companies from emerging countries have stalled – with the same 14% disclosing on this area as in 2015.
What should investors look out for?
- Company failure to acknowledge responsibility or provide evidence of corrective action.
- The response or remediation provided is inadequate to scale of incident (e.g. systemic issue is being addressed with a plan that does not entail changes to the company’s internal processes).
- Failure to implement compliance mechanisms to improve internal management systems to prevent negative impact from reoccurring.
- Failure to involve relevant stakeholders (victims/ authorities/experts) in the design of the remediation plan.
- Failure to provide compensation/reparation to affected parties.
Good practice - mining companies
Barrick Gold has reinforced its disclosure in this area. Following incidents at the Veladero mine in Argentina, the company has installed cameras to monitor the mine and has made it accessible to the general public to enhance transparency. The company publicly acknowledged its responsibility and has published an independent report on its website. It attempted to take a culturally sensitive approach to remediation and sought ongoing input from affected stakeholders during the design of remediation plans. This shows how a company may learn from incidents and alter its internal processes.
Download the full report
Digging deeper: human rights and the extractives sector
Human rights and the extractives industry
- Currently reading
Engagement against objectives: response to human rights incidents