For many mining professionals, ‘human rights’ conjures images of child labour, conflict minerals, or operations in high-risk jurisdictions. It feels distant from the day-to-day realities of running a project in Australia or New Zealand, but that perception is rapidly becoming outdated.
Recent human rights risk assessments (HRRAs) undertaken by SRK Consulting on mining projects in the European Union and other developed countries highlight a shift that mining professionals can no longer ignore. The work is not driven by regulators or community pressure, but by something far more decisive: access to finance.
‘We are increasingly seeing requests for HRRA on mining projects, regardless of jurisdiction,’ says Alice Evans, Senior Consultant at SRK UK. ‘As access to capital tightens and investor scrutiny increases, companies who recognise that human rights link environmental, health and safety and corporate social responsibility functions can demonstrably reduce their risk and improve their access to finance.’
A different kind of trigger
A good example is a mining project in New Zealand, a well-regulated jurisdiction with strong environmental and social frameworks already in place. From a traditional compliance perspective, the project is in good shape. But once the company began seeking international finance, the rules changed.
Lenders operating under the Equator Principles required additional scrutiny. Specifically, they required both a climate risk assessment and a human rights risk assessment, regardless of the project’s jurisdiction.
‘Ultimately, this is about reducing risk,’ says Kate Vershinina MAusIMM, Principal Consultant (Environmental, Social and Governance) at SRK Australia. ‘Financial institutions want to be confident that there are no material risks that could affect the project’s viability or their investment now or in the future.’
That requirement alone is enough to reframe the conversation. Human rights risk is not being driven by policy or principle. It is being driven by capital.
Not what you think it is
One of the most striking aspects of HRRA is how far it diverges from common assumptions about human rights.
In the New Zealand case, there were no issues relating to labour practices, no concerns around modern slavery, and no major social conflicts. Instead, the two most material risks identified were far more familiar: noise impacts on nearby residents and the lack of a formal grievance mechanism.
In other words, standard operational and community issues.
What changed was how they were interpreted.
‘Human rights are often still understood as extreme issues like child labour or slavery,’ Kate explains. ‘But the human rights review resulted in more than 40 rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment.’
That shift is critical. It means that everyday operational impacts such as noise, dust, water use, and stakeholder engagement are no longer just environmental or community relations issues. They are potential human rights risks.
A structured approach to risk
HRRA itself followed a structured methodology developed by SRK that has been used on mining projects in Africa, Europe and Asia from feasibility level through to operational mines.
It began with a broad scan of human rights drawn from multiple international conventions, which were then filtered to identify those relevant to the specific project context. From there, the process involved reviewing regulatory frameworks and identifying gaps, mapping stakeholders and their concerns, identifying potential impacts, conducting workshops with the project team, and assessing how risks were currently managed.
In this case, no major risks were identified, but two moderate risks were flagged. One related to environmental impacts, specifically noise affecting nearby residents. The other was governance-related, focusing on the lack of a formal mechanism for stakeholders to raise concerns.
Both risks were translated into practical actions, including adjustments to operational procedures and the development of a structured grievance system. Importantly, neither required fundamental redesign of the project.
‘This doesn’t usually require major changes,’ Kate says. ‘In jurisdictions like Australia or New Zealand, most systems are already in place. It’s about refining them and aligning them with international expectations.’
‘The workshop with the project team was an effective way to discuss risks already identified in the site risk register and build understanding on human rights with the corporate and on-site teams. It also meant certain risks were elevated in priority and importance because of their potential human right impacts,’ says Alice.
‘This action not only helps the mining company be a good neighbour and maintain its social licence to operate but it is also exactly what investors want to see in terms of risk prioritisation based on potential for harm.’
Compliance is no longer enough
One of the more uncomfortable insights for the industry is that strong local regulation does not guarantee compliance with international standards.
Even in New Zealand, with its robust environmental and social frameworks, gaps were identified when assessed against global benchmarks.
‘There is an assumption that if a project complies with national regulation in so-called Equator Principles designated countries such as New Zealand and Australia, that is sufficient,’ Kate says. ‘But when you assess it against international standards, that is often not the case.’
This is particularly relevant for Australian projects.
Local regulation may satisfy domestic requirements, but international lenders, investors, and customers are increasingly applying their own frameworks. These are often broader, more integrated, and more focused on risk.
The supply chain effect
Beyond finance, another driver is emerging: supply chain pressure.
As Australia strengthens its position as a supplier of critical minerals, particularly to Europe, expectations are shifting. Trade agreements may remove tariffs, but they do not remove compliance obligations.
European markets, in particular, are placing increasing emphasis on supply chain transparency, environmental, social and governance performance, and human rights due diligence. This scrutiny does not stop at the mine gate. It extends across the entire value chain, including contractors and service providers.
‘You can’t say it’s not relevant,’ Kate says. ‘If you are part of the supply chain, you will be assessed against these expectations.’
The common mistake
Despite these trends, many companies are still approaching the issue the wrong way.
A common assumption is that human rights risk can be addressed internally using general knowledge and existing processes.
‘I’ve seen companies treat this as something that can be done with common sense,’ Kate says. ‘But when it goes to lenders, it doesn’t meet the required standard.’
‘I’ve heard companies state they have no human rights risks related to their project, but have no evidence when they start engaging investors,’ says Alice.
‘Undertaking an HRRA ensures someone views the risks from a human rights perspective, whereas often the risks are only viewed from a financial or reputational perspective. The results may be the same, but having a structured, documented process builds investor confidence that all aspects have been considered.’
That gap between perception and expectation is where risk sits.
Getting ahead of it
For most Australian projects, HRRA is not yet standard practice. However, it is becoming more common in specific circumstances, particularly where international finance, compliance with international standards like the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) or export markets are involved.
The practical takeaway is not that every project needs a full HRRA immediately. It is that mining professionals need to start thinking differently about risk. Environmental impacts are also human rights issues, stakeholder engagement is also a rights issue, and governance systems such as grievance mechanisms are increasingly critical to identifying and managing perceived risks.
Most importantly, the risks that matter are not always the ones that are immediately visible.
A shift in perspective
At its core, HRRA is not introducing new risks. It is changing how existing risks are defined, assessed, and prioritised.
‘When viewed through a human rights lens, the risks with the biggest potential to cause harm are elevated in importance and allocated appropriate resources to manage them,’ says Alice. ‘This embodies responsible mining and is the paradigm shift responsible miners have to make.’
‘It’s about identifying what you don’t know,’ Kate says, ‘and making sure those risks don’t become problems later.’
For an industry built on managing uncertainty, that should resonate.
Because in today’s environment, the question is no longer whether human rights risk applies to your project.
It is whether you have identified it before someone else does.
Read the original article from AusIMM Bulletin here.
