PRIZMA

Bankable. Credible. Sustainable.

Flower

15 of 18 ICMM Company Members Produced A+ GRI Reports

ICMM's Annual Review notes high rates of A+ level sustainability reporting among company members, adoption of AA1000 stakeholder engagement standard, and identifies emerging issues in metals and mining sector.

The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), an industry club, was established in 2001. It was designed to act as a catalyst for performance improvement in the mining and metals industry. Today, ICMM members comprise 18 major mining and metals companies and 30 national and regional mining associations and global commodity associations.

ICMM’s goal is to address the core sustainable development challenges faced by the industry. ICMM's member companies comprise African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American, AngloGold Ashanti, Barrick, BHP Billiton, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Goldcorp, Gold Fields, Minerals and Metals Group, Lonmin, Mitsubishi Materials, Newmont, JX Nippon Mining & Metals, Rio Tinto, Sumitomo Metal Mining, Teck, Vale, Xstrata.

The three issues which captured my attention in ICMM’s 2010 Annual Review were these:

First, 15 of ICMM’s 18 member companies obtained an ‘A+’ GRI Application Level for their sustainability reporting. This is impressive – and a consequence of ICMM’s formal adoption of GRI-based sustainability reporting to the highest disclosure level (A) combined with a commitment to external Third Party Assurance on behalf of its member companies (about which I blogged also here: A Little Secret – Sustainability Leadership at the Business Roundtable). 

Second, ICMM is pursuing a more formalized relationships strategy using the AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard. This should not come as a big surprise given the common approach of formalized stakeholder mapping and engagement routinely conducted by ICMM’s company members when pursuing new projects, conducting environmental and social impact assessments, and satisfying Equator Principles and IFC Performance Standards required by most project finance banks (see also my related blogs: Remaining Obstacles to Revisions of IFC Performance Standards and Equator Principles – Only Greenwashing?).

Third, ICMM identified 15 emerging (?) issues relevant to the metals and mining sector. These include water, climate change, community consent and material supply chains.

ICMM continues to set an example as a leading industry club which is not limiting its activities to the least common denominator that appears to hamper other industry clubs. You can download ICMM’s report here.

About the author: Mehrdad Nazari (MBA, MSc, LEAD Fellow) is a Corporate Responsibility, Sustainability Reporting & ESIA Advisor, and Director of Prizma. He was previously an environmental consultant with Dames & Moore, Principal Environmental Specialist at the EBRD and CSR Research Director at CoreRatings. Mehrdad is also a GRI-approved trainer on GRI's sustainability reporting framework and a licensed AA1000 Assurance Provider.

Bookmark and Share

6 Responses to “15 of 18 ICMM Company Members Produced A+ GRI Reports”

  1. March 27th, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Is GRI Too Much Transparency for NGOs? | Prizma says:

    [...] All members of the International NGO Accountability Charter are required to submit an annual report in line with the GRI NGO Sector Supplement. First time reporters are encouraged to use the GRI NGO Level C reporting template which is a lighter version of the NGO Sector Supplement. (This reminds me also of the approach adopted by the International Council on Mining and Metals, a mining idustry club, about which I blogged here: 15 of 18 ICMM Company Members Produced A+ GRI Reports).  [...]

  2. March 28th, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Dylan McFarlane says:

    Just followed you from Jack Caldwell’s mining blog. What are your answers to your questions? I studied ‘sustainable development’ for four years, and i have worked in the placer gold mining industry for six now. I don’t know how much good reporting has done for life “on the ground” but it’s earning lots of consultants money, and bureaucrats a little peace of mind. Maybe it adds value if people actually took notice and use it, but it seems too normalized by the mining industry to actually force positive change at the specific local conditions of communities affected by mining projects.

  3. March 28th, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Mehrdad Nazari says:

    Thanks for your note, Dylan. I note your observation about disconnect between GRI/sustainability reporting and what happens on the ground. While this may be the case in many situations, I am not sure if I agree with you that this sort of reporting is widespread. Although widespread amongst majors, the vast majority of mining companies (which is mid-tier, juniors and the thousands of exploration companies) actually do not produce sustainability reports.

  4. August 10th, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Will GRI be able to catch IPIECA's lead? | Prizma says:

    [...] and supported the development of GRI’s Mining & Metals Sector Supplement. As described in a previous blog, 15 of ICMM’s 18 member companies obtained an ‘A+’ GRI Application Level for their [...]

  5. October 18th, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Equator Banks use Assurance? | Prizma says:

    [...] What has been your assurance experience relating to the implementation and reporting of the Equator Principles in your organization? Given worries about costs, do you think that assurance adds sufficient value? And should Equator Banks simply be required to adopt assurance to protect the reputation of the organization and its members in line with an approach adopted by the International Council on Mining and Metals (see my earlier blog here)? [...]

  6. July 27th, 2013 at 9:26 am

    NGO BankTrack zooming in on Equator Banks | PRIZMA says:

    [...] The process adopted by the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), a mining industry club, provides an interesting model. Since 2010, ICMM has conducted an annual assessment of member performance against their commitments using the GRI reporting framework the associated "+" assurance requirement (see also here). [...]

Leave a Reply

*