Benchmarking Our Performance
In 2013, Kinross compared our 2012 performance on several key environmental and safety indicators to that of our peer group amongst the ten largest gold producers. The purpose of this benchmarking was to provide some context for the performance data that we report, in order to understand how Kinross compares with our peers.
The table below shows the results. Overall, Kinross performance is better than the peer group average for each indicator. Our safety performance – as measured by injury frequency – is the best in the peer group we reviewed.
We used only data that are available from public sources such as annual reports, sustainability reports, and other filings. Most of the data was taken from Bloomberg’s ESG database. Some information not available in Bloomberg, such as the number of ore tonnes processed, was obtained directly from the annual and/or sustainability reports. We excluded outlier results if they were outside the range of plus or minus one standard deviation around the average for the particular metric.
We also looked at water use; however benchmarking was made difficult by a lack of clarity in how companies define and report the data. As a result, in this year’s CR Report, we have provided additional detail on how we calculate each parameter, in the hope users of our data will find it easier to assess our performance.
|Indicator||Kinross 2012 Performance||Top 10 Gold Mining 2012 Average||Top 10 Gold Mining Kinross Rank 2012|
|Total Reportable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR) – per 200,000 hour||0.57||1.28||1|
|Energy Use Intensity –
MJ/tonne of ore processed
|GHG Emission Intensity –
kg CO2e/tonne of ore processed
|Non-mineral Hazardous Waste – kg/tonne of ore processed||0.02||0.07||3|
|Non-mineral Non-Hazardous Waste – kg/tonne of ore processed||0.05||0.47||1|