The list of companies included in the study and the sustainability frameworks used by analyzed companies are presented in Table 2. In the sustainability reports for 2016, all the mining companies, used the GRI G4 Guidelines: Core option with the majority applying the Mining and Metals Sector Supplement. There is a transition towards GRI Standards due to the change from GRI G4 Guidelines to GRI Standards in 2016. Three of the companies as members of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) are obligated to report using the GRI Standards annually. A notable trend was observed in the use of the UN Global Compact (UNGC) principles, with nine out of 10 UNGC signatories by 2018. Similar improvements were visible in the commitment to the SDGs from only four mining companies in 2016 to the integration of the SDGs into the sustainability strategy and reporting by all companies in 2018.
The companies reported on the following topics: governance, stakeholders’ engagement, occupational health and safety, and environment. Each of these topics are discussed in the following section, in addition to how the SDGs relate to the core business of the mining companies.
Table 2
Sustainability reporting frameworks used by analyzed companies
Company
|
Reporting framework
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
Agnico Eagle
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines/ Mining and Metals Sector Supplement
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement; SDGs
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement; SDGs
|
Boliden
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core Option/Mining and Metal Sector Supplement
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core Option/Mining and Metal Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs
|
Eldorado Gold
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core Option;
UNGC
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core Option;
UNGC; SDGs
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core Option;
UNGC; SDGs
|
Elkem
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core Option;
UNGC
|
In accordance with the GRI Standards: Core option;
UNGC; SDGs
|
In accordance with GRI Standards;
UNGC; SDGs
|
Glencore
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core Option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement; UNGC; SDGs; ICMM
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core Option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs; ICMM
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core Option/Mining and Metal Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs; ICMM
|
Hydro
|
In accordance with GRI Standards;
UNGC; SDGs;
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core option;
UNGC; SDGs; ICMM;
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core option;
UNGC; SDGs; ICMM
|
Imerys
|
Citing GRI G4 Guidelines: Core option; UNGC
|
Citing GRI Standards: Core option; UNGC; SDGs;
|
Citing GRI Standards: Core Option;
UN Global Compact; SDGs;
|
LKAB
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core Option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement; UNGC
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement; UNGC; SDGs
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs
|
Lundin
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement; UNGC; SDGs
|
In accordance with GRI Standard: Core option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs
|
Rio Tinto
|
In accordance with GRI G4 Guidelines: Core option/Mining and Metal Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs; ICMM
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement.
UNGC; SDGs; ICMM
|
In accordance with GRI Standards: Core option/Mining and Metals Sector Supplement;
UNGC; SDGs; ICMM
|
Synthesized by the authors based on the analysis of the data. |
4.1 Corporate Governance
Code of Conduct was the primary document for the analyzed firms on which the business strategy and ethical behavior of a company were based. Furthermore, companies had developed additional policies in terms of health and safety, human rights, anti-corruption, environment, and employees. Companies stated that sustainability was an integral part of their business strategy which was aligned with international standards and commitments such as the UNGC, the SDGs, and the GRI Standards.
4.2 Stakeholder engagement
Building a strong relationship and maintaining an open and inclusive dialogue with stakeholders was the main objective for the analyzed companies as part of their social responsibility. Stakeholders’ engagement was recognized as a critical area to maintain the social license to operate and was based on extensive stakeholder mapping, where the priority stakeholder groups were defined. Each company identified its important group of stakeholders (see Table 3).
Table 3
Agnico Eagle
|
Employees, local communities, governments, Indigenous people, partners, shareholders
|
Boliden
|
Employees, neighbors, owners, capital market, business partners, authorities, media, Sami villages, consumers, universities/research, environment
|
Eldorado Gold
|
Employees, contractors, suppliers, shareholders, local community, governments, NGOs, industry groups
|
Elkem
|
Employees, authorities, suppliers, customers, shareholders, local community, unions, research institutions, NGOs
|
Glencore
|
Employees, suppliers and contractors, local communities, local and national governments, NGOs, unions, investors, customers
|
Hydro
|
Society, media, authorities, NGOs, industry associations, customers, partners, suppliers, employees, unions, shareholders, banks, Norwegian state
|
Imerys
|
Employees, business partners, shareholders, investors, suppliers, customers, governments, industry associations, local communities, media
|
LKAB
|
Employees, owner, communities, customers, suppliers, society
|
Lundin
|
Employees, local communities, government, customers, labor unions, NGOs, shareholders, financial institutions, suppliers
|
Rio Tinto
|
Employees, host communities, suppliers and contractors, customers, governments, shareholders and investors, NGOs, industry associations, media
|
Synthesized by the authors based on the analysis of the data. |
Local communities were identified as one of the most important stakeholders of the mining companies due to the impact on communities by providing direct employment and indirect jobs carried out by the mining companies’ suppliers. Community investments were mostly philanthropic donations to community development, infrastructure, health and well-being, and education. Mining companies provided scholarships and internships to attract skilled personnel and cooperated with universities and research institutions on various projects.
In the reports, employees were described as key stakeholders, driving forces, and the best ambassadors to attract new employees. The personnel's competence building was done by mandatory in-house training programs and regular performance reviews for further skills and talent development. Mining companies aim to achieve better gender balance through a workplace without gender-based discrimination or harassment. However, several companies reported on incidents of discrimination or harassment occurred in the studied period (Boliden, Hydro, LKAB). During the three years, the share of women in companies remained the same or increased slightly (Fig. 2).
4.3 Occupational health and safety
Health and safety are among the main concerns for the analyzed mining companies whose aim is to operate without injuries. Their safety performance was frequently monitored using several indicators, like Total Recordable Injury Rate (TRIFR), Lost-Time Injury Frequency (LTIFR), and fatalities (Table 4). Safety has improved over the analyzed period, according to the data presented in the reports. Only few mining firms monitored employees' health by tracking the number of new cases of occupational disease which indicated a reducing trend in new cases of occupational disease.
Table 4. Health and safety performance of analyzed mining companies for 2016-2018 period
Health and safety
|
TRIFR
|
LTIFR
|
Fatalities
|
New cases of occupational illnesses
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
Agnico Eagle
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Boliden
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Eldorado Gold
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Elkem
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Glencore
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
Hydro
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
Imerys
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
LKAB
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Lundin
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Rio Tinto
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
Note: ↓ refers to “negative trends”; ↑ refers to “positive trends”; n/a refers to “not applicable”, n/r to “not reported”.
Created by the authors based on the analysis of the data.
4.4 Environmental issues
The main environmental material topics in the sustainability reports are energy, and greenhouse gas emissions, water management, waste, and air emissions (Tables 5 and 6.). Energy consumption represents one of the significant environmental impacts with fossil fuels as a highly represented energy source within mining operations, while the share of renewable energy in the energy mix is above average just for few companies, such as Hydro, Elkem, and Lundin (≥ 50%). Only Hydro and Rio Tinto had reduced total energy use in the period from 2016 to 2018.
Decreasing trends in total GHG emissions were noticeable in the data for five companies, due to implementation of energy recovery from excess heat, and the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Some companies, however, did not report on air emissions at all. Despite the efforts, most of the companies had increased SO2 emissions from boosted production or higher sulfur content in the raw material. The dust emissions were lower for the companies which included dust emissions in their reports.
Vast amounts of water are utilized in mineral production, thus, to reduce the impact, companies implement, reuse, and recycling of water, and the usage of closed systems in the production. Compared with the year 2016, most of companies had increased amounts of withdrawn water. The share of the reused/recycled water was from 10 percent (Hydro), to around 200 percent (Lundin), while other companies were above 50 percent.
Table 5. Environmental performance in energy, GHG emission and air emissions of analyzed mining companies for the 2016 – 2018 period.
Environment
|
Energy
|
GHG emission
|
Air emissions
|
Consumption
|
Renewables
|
|
SO2
|
NOx
|
Dust
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
Agnico Eagle
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Boliden
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
→
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
Eldorado Gold
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Elkem
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
Glencore
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Hydro
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
→
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
Imerys
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
→
|
→
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
LKAB
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
→
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
→
|
Lundin
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Rio Tinto
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
Note: ↓ refers to “negative trends”; ↑ refers to “positive trends”; → refers to “no change”; n/a refers to “not applicable”, n/r to “not reported”. Created by the authors based on the analysis of the data.
Table 6. Environmental performance in water, waste, and land use of analyzed mining companies for the 2016 – 2018 period.
Environment
|
Water
|
Waste
|
Land use
|
Withdrawal
|
Recycled/reused
|
Generated
|
Recycled/reused
|
Disturbed
|
Rehabilitated
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
Agnico Eagle
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Boliden
|
↓
|
→
|
→
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
Eldorado Gold
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/a
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
↑
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
↑
|
Elkem
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Glencore
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Hydro
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
Imerys
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
LKAB
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
Lundin
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
↓
|
Rio Tinto
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
↑
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
n/r
|
↓
|
↑
|
↓
|
↓
|
↑
|
↑
|
Note: ↓ refers to “negative trends”; ↑ refers to “positive trends”; → refers to “no change”; n/a refers to “not applicable”, n/r to “not reported”. Created by the authors based on the analysis of the data.
Generation of waste from the mining operations increased for the majority of companies, while half of them did not presented data for reused or recycled waste. Barren rock and partially tailings were used as backfill in underground mines, as a construction material, and in cement production. Elkem uses collected micro silica as a by-product, while Hydro and Boliden recover metals from process waste.
Mining uses large land areas for mining, exploration, and the construction of the mining infrastructure. Boliden, Imerys, Hydro and Rio Tinto used two land-use indicators, namely total disturbed surface area and total rehabilitated area. Despite the restoration activities, rehabilitated area per year is much lower than the affected area.
4.6 Integration of the SDGs into the core business
Mining companies’ sustainability work is based on their own established norms and values, as well as on the UN Global Compact principles and the SDGs. Implementation of the SDGs into the sustainability reports considerably improved over the three-year study period. In 2016 only Glencore, Hydro, Lundin, and Rio Tinto had begun to align their sustainability strategies with the SDGs. By the 2018 reporting year, all the mining companies adopted SDGs as a part of their business strategy. Their contribution to the SDGs is explained in special sections within the report or directly linked to the materiality topics. However, the explanations were too general without profounder relation to the SDGs and defined objectives linked to the SDGs targets.
The results from all referred SDGs from the reports are presented in the Table 7. The only mutual SDG for all companies was Goal number 8, Decent work, and economic growth, followed by SDG 3 Good health and well-being and SDG 13 Climate action. Other relevant SDGs within the studied reports were SDG 16 Peace, justice, and strong institutions, SDG 5 Gender equality, SDG 6 Clean water and sanitation, SDG 9 Industry, innovation and infrastructure, SDG 10 reduced inequalities, SDG 12 responsible consumption and production, and SDG 15 Life on land. SDG 1 No poverty and SDG 2 Zero hunger were not well represented in the analyzed sustainability reports.
Table7. Sustainable Development Goal referred in the analyzed reports.
SDG
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
Agnico Eagle
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
Boliden
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
Eldorado Gold
|
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elkem
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
Glencore
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
Hydro
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
Imerys
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
LKAB
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
Lundin
|
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
Rio Tinto
|
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
Created by the authors based on the analysis of the data.
4.7 Institutional drivers of sustainability of European mining companies
The findings suggest that European mining companies act under pressures from international initiatives like UNGC, industry associations, the European Union, governments, stakeholders, and partnerships. Stakeholders like local communities were a highly influential force requiring that mining companies implement actions to mitigate negative impacts like dust, noise, and heavy traffic. Partnerships with external stakeholders such as NGOs, universities, and research institutes act as a normative driver for sustainability activities in fields of biodiversity, education, and research and development (R&D). Figure 2 synthesizes the key findings on the study showing how institutional drivers influence the sustainability practices among European mining companies and their contribution to sustainable development as presented in their sustainability reports. The figure also suggests an additional pressure, in the form of community acceptance, namely the social license to operate. In addition, the figure shows how reporting on sustainability issues may lead to additional improvements in terms of contributions to sustainable development, such as increased emphasis on the SDGs and in the sustainability practices of European mining companies. These improvements can, in turn, further alter institutional drivers, such as through peer pressure among companies in the same sector. All these aspects are discussed further in what follows.