12 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
at what cost? Is retrofitting or an existing plant worth con-
sidering, given the net cost of plant modifications and the
likely risk of equipment warranties for advanced perfor-
mance not being forthcoming?
PWC’s 26th Annual CEO Survey (Bermack, 2023)
suggested that 35% of mining CEOs said their companies
are highly or extremely exposed to climate risks arising in
the next five years. To date over two-thirds of the top min-
ing companies have established emissions reductions targets
for 2030. It is fully acknowledged that, as stated by Simon
Thompson, chair of Rio Tinto back in 2018 that “perhaps
the greatest long-term threat to Rio Tinto is if business, inves-
tors, consumer and especially government, collectively fail to
take action on climate change.”
In this Plenary Paper we have analyzed the annual
reports of major mining corporations, and we can observe
a wide range of responses and approaches to managing
journeys to sustainable operation. This was undertaken by
setting up different personas and using generative AI tools
to probe the sentiment expressed in the publicly available
reports from different perspectives. Seventeen copper min-
ing companies were assessed based on 3 key attributes. The
data were collected and shared with Generative AI (from
‘Open AI’) which was instructed with certain prompts to
analyze the data according to each of the criteria of the
attributes and then to score each criterion out of 10. The
overall attribute score is the average of the assessed criteria
in that attribute.
Attribute 1 relates to Technological Advancement
and was divided into two criteria. The first was seeking out
examples of best practice. The second was looking for mag-
nitudes of investments in technology and pioneering behav-
ior and outcomes. Attribute 2 judged the Perceptions of
Sustainability and was divided into three criteria based on
the articulated position on the adoption of Net-zero tar-
gets, Sustainability Target and the Impact beyond mining.
Attribute 3 was deduced by configuring Persona Profiles
and using Generative AI prompt engineering to assess cor-
porate performance from the perspectives of a shareholder,
CEO, journalist, and an employee.
Further details of the analysis are provided elsewhere
(Gasimov et al., 2024) along with the methodology and
personas. AI tools are proving effective for evaluations such
as we have deployed, as they are regarded as being unbi-
ased and their effectiveness is determined by the manner
in which the ‘prompts’ are devised and used. It should be
noted that we have explicitly only used the publicly avail-
able Annual Reports for the 2023 financial year. Other
available data on the companies and their activities have not
been considered to enable a fair comparative assessment.
It is important to emphasize that the following ranking is
based on Generative AI judgement of data in the Annual
Report sources alone.
Table 2 gives the final scores for the three attributes.
Looking at the accumulated attribute scores (Figure 5) pro-
vides an overall performance assessment from which BHP,
Zijin, Rio Tinto and Glencore are seen to be sector leaders.
For other companies, the lower ranking is associated with
absence of data or considerations expressed in the annual
reports – this may suggest either absence of data, lack of
intent or action, or inadvertent inclusion due to omis-
sion or deliberate decision, or lack of transparency regard-
ing investments in technology, operational greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, future targets, and renewable energy
utilization.
At first sight, some of the clear innovations made by
companies create a perception that they are on track with
their goals, but the overall progress can be hard to discern
since the adoption of standard measurements in net-zero
performance still pertains. The most common innovations
are in transitioning to renewable diesel or to electrification in
heavy machinery, and investments in renewable resources.
Key measures in the green innovation chain are the use of
renewable energy and game changing technological imple-
mentations. Some examples of the latter include adop-
tion of BioIronTM Technology, and ELYSIS ™, innovative
Copper leaching technology (Rio Tinto), carbon capture
and sequestration (Glencore), direct-to-blister flash cop-
per smelting (Ivanhoe), and adoption of LNG (Freeport).
There is no apparent correlation between high scores in the
perception of Attributes 1 and 2 and the scale (revenue) of
the company. It is perhaps surprising that there is not more
differentiation of performance in impact of innovation as
function of scale, suggesting that the ability to describe
impact of innovation is not well crafted overall. The overall
perceived performance of companies in their endeavors for
driving sustainability (Attribute 3) was strong. Overall, the
first seven listed companies in Table 2, were certainly dif-
ferentiated from the others.
PROFIT AND CORPORATE PURPOSE
The crude hammer of ESG regulation and confusing com-
plexity of understanding where boundaries and respon-
sibilities lie presents challenge rather than clarity for
corporations. We know that mineral engineers recognized
the environmental impact way back in the first works of
Agricola (1556) and worked to mitigate these through best
available practice, but negative impacts were also created by
mining and processing. The perceptions noted above show
a wide variation in attitude and associated prioritization
at what cost? Is retrofitting or an existing plant worth con-
sidering, given the net cost of plant modifications and the
likely risk of equipment warranties for advanced perfor-
mance not being forthcoming?
PWC’s 26th Annual CEO Survey (Bermack, 2023)
suggested that 35% of mining CEOs said their companies
are highly or extremely exposed to climate risks arising in
the next five years. To date over two-thirds of the top min-
ing companies have established emissions reductions targets
for 2030. It is fully acknowledged that, as stated by Simon
Thompson, chair of Rio Tinto back in 2018 that “perhaps
the greatest long-term threat to Rio Tinto is if business, inves-
tors, consumer and especially government, collectively fail to
take action on climate change.”
In this Plenary Paper we have analyzed the annual
reports of major mining corporations, and we can observe
a wide range of responses and approaches to managing
journeys to sustainable operation. This was undertaken by
setting up different personas and using generative AI tools
to probe the sentiment expressed in the publicly available
reports from different perspectives. Seventeen copper min-
ing companies were assessed based on 3 key attributes. The
data were collected and shared with Generative AI (from
‘Open AI’) which was instructed with certain prompts to
analyze the data according to each of the criteria of the
attributes and then to score each criterion out of 10. The
overall attribute score is the average of the assessed criteria
in that attribute.
Attribute 1 relates to Technological Advancement
and was divided into two criteria. The first was seeking out
examples of best practice. The second was looking for mag-
nitudes of investments in technology and pioneering behav-
ior and outcomes. Attribute 2 judged the Perceptions of
Sustainability and was divided into three criteria based on
the articulated position on the adoption of Net-zero tar-
gets, Sustainability Target and the Impact beyond mining.
Attribute 3 was deduced by configuring Persona Profiles
and using Generative AI prompt engineering to assess cor-
porate performance from the perspectives of a shareholder,
CEO, journalist, and an employee.
Further details of the analysis are provided elsewhere
(Gasimov et al., 2024) along with the methodology and
personas. AI tools are proving effective for evaluations such
as we have deployed, as they are regarded as being unbi-
ased and their effectiveness is determined by the manner
in which the ‘prompts’ are devised and used. It should be
noted that we have explicitly only used the publicly avail-
able Annual Reports for the 2023 financial year. Other
available data on the companies and their activities have not
been considered to enable a fair comparative assessment.
It is important to emphasize that the following ranking is
based on Generative AI judgement of data in the Annual
Report sources alone.
Table 2 gives the final scores for the three attributes.
Looking at the accumulated attribute scores (Figure 5) pro-
vides an overall performance assessment from which BHP,
Zijin, Rio Tinto and Glencore are seen to be sector leaders.
For other companies, the lower ranking is associated with
absence of data or considerations expressed in the annual
reports – this may suggest either absence of data, lack of
intent or action, or inadvertent inclusion due to omis-
sion or deliberate decision, or lack of transparency regard-
ing investments in technology, operational greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, future targets, and renewable energy
utilization.
At first sight, some of the clear innovations made by
companies create a perception that they are on track with
their goals, but the overall progress can be hard to discern
since the adoption of standard measurements in net-zero
performance still pertains. The most common innovations
are in transitioning to renewable diesel or to electrification in
heavy machinery, and investments in renewable resources.
Key measures in the green innovation chain are the use of
renewable energy and game changing technological imple-
mentations. Some examples of the latter include adop-
tion of BioIronTM Technology, and ELYSIS ™, innovative
Copper leaching technology (Rio Tinto), carbon capture
and sequestration (Glencore), direct-to-blister flash cop-
per smelting (Ivanhoe), and adoption of LNG (Freeport).
There is no apparent correlation between high scores in the
perception of Attributes 1 and 2 and the scale (revenue) of
the company. It is perhaps surprising that there is not more
differentiation of performance in impact of innovation as
function of scale, suggesting that the ability to describe
impact of innovation is not well crafted overall. The overall
perceived performance of companies in their endeavors for
driving sustainability (Attribute 3) was strong. Overall, the
first seven listed companies in Table 2, were certainly dif-
ferentiated from the others.
PROFIT AND CORPORATE PURPOSE
The crude hammer of ESG regulation and confusing com-
plexity of understanding where boundaries and respon-
sibilities lie presents challenge rather than clarity for
corporations. We know that mineral engineers recognized
the environmental impact way back in the first works of
Agricola (1556) and worked to mitigate these through best
available practice, but negative impacts were also created by
mining and processing. The perceptions noted above show
a wide variation in attitude and associated prioritization