Target 11.4: Protect cultural and natural heritage
Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world's cultural and natural heritage
Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Why shareholder democracy is helpful
Mining, oil and gas, dam and infrastructure companies decide directly whether many heritage sites survive. Rio Tinto acknowledges that in May 2020 it destroyed the Juukan Gorge rock shelters despite archaeological reports it had received since 2013. The destruction prompted a board review, a parliamentary inquiry and an independent audit. If every listed extractive and construction company adopted binding no-go and free, prior and informed consent policies for heritage sites, that category of destruction would largely stop. Yet the largest threat to natural heritage is not project siting. IUCN's World Heritage Outlook found climate change to be the top threat, affecting 33 percent of natural sites, followed by invasive species, with tourism pressure and wildfire also prominent. Climate is scored on its own, under Target 13.2, which we rate pivotal. State protection, funding, enforcement and conflict determine most heritage outcomes, so owners help at the margin here.
How this was scoredHelpful
Helpful. Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
We have not yet written down the two answers behind this rating. Recording them on every item, so a reader can check the reasoning and not only the conclusion, is work in progress.
Every rating is the higher of two answers, one for what companies do and one for what they spend to stop the outcome, because the same vote reaches both. See the full method.
Sources
What civil society organizations are helping owners on this
Led a 20-member investor group that pressed Rio Tinto after the Juukan Gorge destruction and secured transparency commitments on cultural heritage management.
Co-led the 64-investor letter to mining company boards on Indigenous community rights and cultural heritage following Juukan Gorge.
Filed a 2020 shareholder resolution at BHP seeking a moratorium on activities that would disturb or destroy Australian cultural heritage sites and removal of contractual gag clauses on Traditional Owners.
3 campaigns on record
Make transparency commitments on cultural heritage management and on partnerships with Indigenous communities so investors can judge progress after Juukan Gorge.
With AustralianSuper, Aviva Investors, Aware Super, Brunel Pension Partnership, Cbus, EOS at Federated Hermes, IFM Investors, M&G Investments, UniSuper, USS Investment Management
Result: Agreement reached with a 20-member investor group
Rio Tinto committed to enhanced disclosure on communities and cultural heritage performance, with regular reporting that incorporates the voice of affected communities, and to continued dialogue with investors on disclosure and governance.
Explain their approach to Indigenous community relations, the governance framework overseeing those relationships, the actions taken to manage the risk and their disclosure plans.
With Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, Aware Super, Cbus, HESTA, Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, USS
Result: Signed by 64 investors representing 10.2 trillion US dollars in assets under management
Impose a moratorium on activities that would disturb, destroy or desecrate cultural heritage sites in Australia until heritage laws are strengthened, and remove contractual gag orders that stop Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traditional Owners speaking publicly about heritage concerns.
With More than 100 co-filing shareholders
Result: Withdrawn before the annual general meetings
BHP negotiated an agreement with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance, a coalition of more than 20 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations.
Where this is covered on this map
How this rating was made
Every item on every one of our maps is read against one question: how far does this depend on the people who own companies voting their values? We answer it twice, once for what companies do and once for what they spend to stop the outcome, and take whichever answer is higher, since the same vote reaches both. The score carries its reasoning and its sources so that a reader can check it rather than take it.
- Pivotal. Owners voting their values can deliver most of the outcome.
- Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes, and others must also act.
- Helpful. Owners voting their values help, and others carry most of it.
- Independent. This moves without owners. Other levers carry it.
The advocacy record on this page holds only what a source we opened says happened. Where we searched and found nothing, the page says so rather than leaving a silence. Where a campaign names a filer the source does not name, it says that too. Ratings are ours; the list of subjects is UN Sustainable Development Goals's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.