XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 615
Canada, the challenges of water abundance, tailings dam
failures, and water issues at closure can more problematic,
and may be of higher priority to local communities and
rightsholders. It would therefore be misleading to assume
that water efficiency is the only or necessarily the most
pertinent issue for the mining sector to manage. In recog-
nition of the broader nature of these issues, industry orga-
nizations such as the International Council on Mining and
Metals have promoted the adoption of a ‘water steward-
ship’ approach, that encourages the sector to think more
holistically about its water-related dependencies and aims
to go beyond an internally oriented ‘water management’
paradigm (ICMM, 2017 Kunz, 2020).
The goal of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which
mining companies are indeed adopting a broadened per-
spective of the water issues affecting their operations, in a
manner that we might expect if they were truly embracing a
water stewardship strategy. To achieve this, we analyzed the
sustainability and integrated reports from 25 of the world’s
major mining companies to determine their water-related
goals. This provides an indication of the types of water
issues that they perceive to be corporate priorities.
METHODOLOGY
The study focused on 25 mining companies who are mem-
bers of the International Council on Mining and Metals
(ICMM). Such companies have made public commitment
towards water stewardship goals and broader principles for
responsible mining. We therefore expect that they would
have set targets for water management and stewardship that
are reflective of such aspirations. Sustainability and/or inte-
grated annual reports were downloaded from the websites
of each company, based on the 2022 reporting year. Our
complete dataset comprised of 48 comprehensive sustain-
ability and integrated and annual reports. All reports were
obtained from the public domain, such that no permission
was required for this research.
Two approaches were used for data analysis. First, we
utilized NVivo software to search for occurrences of the
keywords “water” and “target” within each report. By doing
so, we were also able to identify related terms and dis-
cover alternative phrasings such as “water goal” and “water
consumption reduction in mining operations,” rather
than searching only for the specific phrase “water target.”
Secondly, an Excel sheet was developed with a set of crite-
ria that were used to compare the information contained
within the reports. These criteria included the target itself,
the approach used to set the target, and if the company was
using the ICMM water reporting guidelines or any other
such set.
Through the analysis of the reports, we found some
inconsistency across companies with respect to how
water targets were expressed and reported publicly, which
required some subjective judgement in how to summarize
and compare targets across companies. For example, the
term ‘water target’ was not used by all companies, with lan-
guage such as “water goals” and/or “sustainability targets”
also being referred to. Some companies did not explicitly
state water targets, but they reported their water use or
recycling performance in ways that suggested there might
be an internal target (or targets) that they were working
towards. For example, Barrick reported on their percentage
of water reuse/recycling, total water withdrawn, and per-
centage of high quality water discharged, over each of the
previous 4 years (2019–2022). In those instances, we did
not attempt to determine the water target that the com-
pany might have internally for benchmarking purposes.
There were also some companies that had more than one
target, and others who acknowledged they don’t yet have a
target, but indicated that they plan to create one. Based on
these differences, we decided to categorize the companies
into four groups: (1) Companies that had explicitly set a
single water target, (2) Companies that had set more than 1
water target, (3) Companies that acknowledged they don’t
yet have a target, but indicated that they plan to, and (4)
Companies that didn’t include a water target within their
reports but rather reported their water performance more
broadly. While every effort has been made to be consistent
in our assessment, we acknowledge that some subjectiv-
ity was involved in this analysis and that it is possible that
some references to targets were missed.
RESULTS
The results from the analysis (Table 1) indicate that all of
the companies analyzed included some discussion about
water within their sustainability reports, confirming it to
be a strategic priority. Of the 25 companies, we identified
16 (64% of our sample) that had explicitly set a single water
target, 3 (12%) that had set more than one water target,
1 (4%) that acknowledged it doesn’t yet have a target but
indicated that they plan to, and 5 (20%) that didn’t include
a water target but reported on water performance more
broadly.
Of the companies that had set water targets, there was
an emphasis on targets associated with reducing water with-
drawals from specific water sources. For example, Anglo
American aims to reduce the abstraction of “fresh water,”
Africa Rainbow Minerals and Sibanya Stillwater both seek
to reduce withdrawals of “potable water,” while Antofagasta
and Codelco focus on reducing use of “inland water” or
Canada, the challenges of water abundance, tailings dam
failures, and water issues at closure can more problematic,
and may be of higher priority to local communities and
rightsholders. It would therefore be misleading to assume
that water efficiency is the only or necessarily the most
pertinent issue for the mining sector to manage. In recog-
nition of the broader nature of these issues, industry orga-
nizations such as the International Council on Mining and
Metals have promoted the adoption of a ‘water steward-
ship’ approach, that encourages the sector to think more
holistically about its water-related dependencies and aims
to go beyond an internally oriented ‘water management’
paradigm (ICMM, 2017 Kunz, 2020).
The goal of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which
mining companies are indeed adopting a broadened per-
spective of the water issues affecting their operations, in a
manner that we might expect if they were truly embracing a
water stewardship strategy. To achieve this, we analyzed the
sustainability and integrated reports from 25 of the world’s
major mining companies to determine their water-related
goals. This provides an indication of the types of water
issues that they perceive to be corporate priorities.
METHODOLOGY
The study focused on 25 mining companies who are mem-
bers of the International Council on Mining and Metals
(ICMM). Such companies have made public commitment
towards water stewardship goals and broader principles for
responsible mining. We therefore expect that they would
have set targets for water management and stewardship that
are reflective of such aspirations. Sustainability and/or inte-
grated annual reports were downloaded from the websites
of each company, based on the 2022 reporting year. Our
complete dataset comprised of 48 comprehensive sustain-
ability and integrated and annual reports. All reports were
obtained from the public domain, such that no permission
was required for this research.
Two approaches were used for data analysis. First, we
utilized NVivo software to search for occurrences of the
keywords “water” and “target” within each report. By doing
so, we were also able to identify related terms and dis-
cover alternative phrasings such as “water goal” and “water
consumption reduction in mining operations,” rather
than searching only for the specific phrase “water target.”
Secondly, an Excel sheet was developed with a set of crite-
ria that were used to compare the information contained
within the reports. These criteria included the target itself,
the approach used to set the target, and if the company was
using the ICMM water reporting guidelines or any other
such set.
Through the analysis of the reports, we found some
inconsistency across companies with respect to how
water targets were expressed and reported publicly, which
required some subjective judgement in how to summarize
and compare targets across companies. For example, the
term ‘water target’ was not used by all companies, with lan-
guage such as “water goals” and/or “sustainability targets”
also being referred to. Some companies did not explicitly
state water targets, but they reported their water use or
recycling performance in ways that suggested there might
be an internal target (or targets) that they were working
towards. For example, Barrick reported on their percentage
of water reuse/recycling, total water withdrawn, and per-
centage of high quality water discharged, over each of the
previous 4 years (2019–2022). In those instances, we did
not attempt to determine the water target that the com-
pany might have internally for benchmarking purposes.
There were also some companies that had more than one
target, and others who acknowledged they don’t yet have a
target, but indicated that they plan to create one. Based on
these differences, we decided to categorize the companies
into four groups: (1) Companies that had explicitly set a
single water target, (2) Companies that had set more than 1
water target, (3) Companies that acknowledged they don’t
yet have a target, but indicated that they plan to, and (4)
Companies that didn’t include a water target within their
reports but rather reported their water performance more
broadly. While every effort has been made to be consistent
in our assessment, we acknowledge that some subjectiv-
ity was involved in this analysis and that it is possible that
some references to targets were missed.
RESULTS
The results from the analysis (Table 1) indicate that all of
the companies analyzed included some discussion about
water within their sustainability reports, confirming it to
be a strategic priority. Of the 25 companies, we identified
16 (64% of our sample) that had explicitly set a single water
target, 3 (12%) that had set more than one water target,
1 (4%) that acknowledged it doesn’t yet have a target but
indicated that they plan to, and 5 (20%) that didn’t include
a water target but reported on water performance more
broadly.
Of the companies that had set water targets, there was
an emphasis on targets associated with reducing water with-
drawals from specific water sources. For example, Anglo
American aims to reduce the abstraction of “fresh water,”
Africa Rainbow Minerals and Sibanya Stillwater both seek
to reduce withdrawals of “potable water,” while Antofagasta
and Codelco focus on reducing use of “inland water” or