Empty Promises: The Mining Industry's Inadequate Response to Gender Based Violence (GBV)

Content warning: This blog contains themes of sexual violence. 

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) describes GBV as ‘“one of the biggest challenges faced by women who work in mines” yet research has found that compared to other industries, the mining sector is slow in its attempts to address the issue, which is largely underreported.

An entrenched culture of silence and corporate indifference persists. While contributing factors include under-representation of women, particularly in senior supervisory roles, lack of gender-appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and the specific layout of mining sites, there are structural commonalities that pervade the industry leaving women disproportionately vulnerable to violence.

The issues pervade the entire mining sector, from extraction and processing to the supply chain as well as impacting those living in the vicinity of mine sites. 

Extraction 

Large-scale mining operations are generally conducted either deep underground or more commonly in open pits. In both, the environments are highly industrial and often occupied by a male dominated transient workforce. They also tend to be remote and isolated, and researchers note that women are particularly vulnerable when working underground and at night. 

For example, in 2022, the global union federation IndustriaALL reported that the architecture and isolation of deep-level underground mines in South Africa was being exploited by perpetrators of sexual violence. Women reported being groped and subjected to sexual harassment, including men publicly masturbating in the cages that transport workers into the mines. IndustriaALL also revealed that women, particularly those holding lower-paid positions, are made to navigate a culture of coercion, where sexual favours are exchanged for employment or the allocation of less physically taxing work.

Processing  

Once extracted, mineral processing separates the valuable material from the mined ore. Much of the processing is done by small scale and artisanal miners. Women tend to be involved in the more arduous and hazardous tasks and they receive generally lower remuneration for this work than their male counterparts.

A recent investigation into Botswana’s diamond-polishing factories, supplying the British-South African mining giant De Beers, uncovered patterns of abuse from the mine into the supply chain. The report revealed exploitative conditions and allegations of rape, sexual harassment, and assault of the factories’ female workforce.

Local Community Impacts

Beyond the mine operations, surrounding communities are also impacted by GBV. Reports linking the influx of male mining personnel into communities with increased levels of violence against women are common. In recent years, Leigh Day’s International Department has represented mining communities alleging severe mistreatment by local security forces, such as in Tanzania where a number of claimants were women who had suffered serious sexual abuse, including rape, allegedly at the hands of private security guards employed and/or contracted by the Williamson Diamond Mine (owned by British company Petra Diamonds Limited).

Environmental degradation caused by mining operations also poses indirect threats to women. A recent report by RAID and AFREWATCH revealed the devastating impact of toxic mine pollution on the reproductive health of women in communities around cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Water collection and usage (both highly gendered activities in the region) combined with sanitation issues is disproportionately exposing women and girls to contaminated water, leading to gynaecological and reproductive problems. Of those interviewed in the investigation, 56% reported issues including miscarriages, infections and birth defects.

Despite these findings, mining companies operating in the area (Glencore, CMOC, ERG, Zijin Mining) offered no substantive response regarding these health impacts from their industrial activities. Glencore simply cited its support of a “menstrual hygiene campaign” and the construction of a local maternity clinic, while CMOC flagrantly dismissed the findings altogether, blaming the rise in gynaecological issues on factors such as unprotected sexual intercourse or hormonal imbalances.  

Inadequate Action  

In light of the issues highlighted above, it is unsurprising that Responsible Mining Index’s (RMI) 2022 assessment of the practices and policies of 40 large-scale mining companies found “very little evidence of companies having systems to regularly assess the impacts of their operations on women in mining-affected communities”. Compounding this issue is the real fear of victimisation, job loss or further abuse, which means many female mine workers do not report cases of GBV. Lack of safe or operational grievance mechanisms and consistent failings to act on complaints also leave women, inside and out of the mining operations, suffering in silence while multinational mining companies continue to profit.

Even if issues are assessed and/or reported, the extent of the issues is frequently masked with certification and auditing schemes often accused of “greenwashing” human rights abuses linked to mining operations. A recent letter, from civil society organisations to four major mining organisations, expresses renewed concerns about the development of a new “deeply problematic” industry-led mining standard (Consolidated Mining Standard - CMS) which they say has been produced for corporate interest, with a “dearth of transparency” and absence of any participation of workers, unions or affected communities. This is a worrying development and does not bode well for industry efforts to meaningfully expose and address systemic GBV. 

A recent “progress report” on the workplace culture of Anglo-Australian mining company, Rio Tinto, provides a stark example. Whilst the report seems to acknowledge the hyper-masculine culture pervasive in mining, it engages only superficially with the systemic issue of GBV. ‘Sexual harassment’ is placed under the umbrella term of “harmful behaviours” (along with bullying and racism – other significant issues in their own right). The report does not use the term ‘gender-based violence’ at all and allegations of serious sexual assaults (8 allegations of rape, or attempted rape, up from 5 in 2021) are cited once, with no corresponding context or disaggregated data.  

Whilst corporate transparency and accountability on workplace issues is a step in the right direction, Rio Tinto fails to provide a detailed and focused analysis of findings of GBV or put forward gender-specific actions in its 2022 “framework for action”, which centered around implementation of their ‘Everyday Respect Global Policy’. Rio Tinto also fails to interrogate the many ways in which mining operations perpetuate violence against women, including but not limited to sexual harassment and assault. These are often complex and varied, shaped by different cultural, economic and political factors.  

This appears to be in line with RMI’s analysis of 40 other mining companies, which found that attempts at gender-specific initiatives were “selective” and “patchy” and frequently driven by reputational interest or being seen to do the ‘right thing’. For instance, while numerous companies were found to be performing well in redressing gender imbalances at senior board level (considered “low hanging fruit” due to its visibility in corporate reporting), they had broadly failed on implementing measures to address GBV.  

Dealing with the systemic issue of gender-based violence in the mining industry is a matter of urgency. Gender-specific action needs to move beyond ‘box ticking’ with a focus on commitments to gender equality and tackling the issues holistically and structurally. This must be the responsibility of the mining industry which enables the environments that put women at risk. Otherwise, it cannot credibly claim to be an industry committed to upholding human rights.