Mining and energy companies must stop extracting and burning coal if disastrous climate change is to be avoided, a new report by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (Somo) stresses, though it questions what this transition will mean for communities and workers that depend on coal mining for their livelihoods.

Additionally, the report seeks to discuss what the departure of mining and energy companies will mean for the victims of human rights violations that were allegedly perpetrated in and around coal mines and that remain unaddressed and unremedied.

The report by Somo also seeks to highlight and analyse the responsibilities companies have towards communities and workers when they stop operations and leave an area.

The report, launched on July 12, analyses alleged violations around openpit mines through the lens of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines and the United Nations Guiding Principles, and it makes the most detailed public analysis to date anywhere in the world of when and how a company shifts from being “directly linked to” human rights violations to “contributing to” the abuse, according to the statement.

The report, however, alleges that coal miners Drummond and Prodeco, a subsidiary of multinational mining giant Glencore, have contributed to harms associated with the forced displacement of tens of thousands of people, and as such, states that both mining companies should help remediate these impacts, a responsibility that “does not simply go away if they stop mining in the area”.

Prodeco recently announced its imminent departure from Cesar, in Colombia, which threatens to leave the alleged human rights abuses unremediated, Somo claims.

Further, the report contends that European energy providers which bought coal from Colombia over many years should have known since at least 2014 about the role of the two mining companies in the violations and their failure to address the impacts.

Somo senior researcher Joseph Wilde-Ramsing says that, following the framework of the OECD Guidelines, the centre concludes that “energy providers that bought coal from the Colombian mines after 2017 should also be considered to have “contributed” to the adverse impacts in Cesar”.

“They should responsibly disengage from Drummond and Prodeco/Glencore’s coal mines, but also help remediate past harms to which they contributed and prevent any new negative impacts that may arise from their disengagement,” Wilde-Ramsing comments.

The case in Colombia also touches on a wider debate around responsible disengagement and the just energy transition, where coal mining and coal-fired electricity production have long been associated with severe human rights and environmental harms around the world, including anthropogenic climate change, Somo claims.

At the same time, many communities heavily depend on coal mining for their livelihoods.

Wilde-Ramsing stresses that these people “cannot be left behind”, noting that an “irresponsible departure” that does not redress past abuses, while failing to provide workers with new skills and livelihood opportunities, is unacceptable and contradicts international norms.

“Mining and energy companies should develop ambitious and just exit strategies through meaningful engagement with trade unions, communities, civil society and governments.”

Besides other things, the report recommends that companies support employees who were made redundant, including employees of contractors and suppliers, through measures such as the creation of an investment fund aimed at economic diversification and new job creation and support programmes for labour reconversion, extended severance payments, training to find other jobs or start businesses, and setting up microcredit schemes.

Responsible exit strategies should also include acknowledgement of the company’s role in alleged past abuses, the provision of funding (potentially in escrow accounts) to be used for remediation of alleged past abuses and rehabilitation of the mining site and ensuring the continuation of public services, Somo suggests.

In a separate statement, Glencore reiterates its commitment to responsible sourcing, as its portfolio “enables the transition to a low-carbon economy, while meeting society’s energy needs as it progresses through the transition”.

However, while the Somo report references some of Glencore’s suggested amendments, as the miner had an opportunity to review the report prior to publication, the diversified miner laments that “the report continues to contain a number of egregious allegations”.

Besides others, says Glencore, the report alleges that Prodeco’s presence “contributed to the forced displacement of communities both prior to its presence in Cesar, and while it was operating”.

Glencore refutes this allegation, stating that Prodeco “does not accept responsibility for and has not contributed towards any actions taken by paramilitary groups, or other similar organisations that resulted in the displacement of communities”.

Another allegation contained in the report, which Glencore says is incorrect, is that Prodeco did not communicate the findings of its 2018 human rights impact assessment to affected stakeholders.

This assessment, Glencore says, was carried out during 2019 and Covid-19-related restrictions delayed its completion and communication.

Glencore notes that the results of the report, and the relevant actions, will be communicated to the impacted stakeholders in due course.

Glencore’s response to other allegations contained in the Somo report can be found here.