Photo: Richard Murphy

By Richard Solly, Co-ordinator, London Mining Network, based on notes of the AGM made by Stephan Suhner, Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien (Switzerland-Colombia Working Group).

An on-demand webcast of the AGM can be found here along with the Notice and Results of the AGM. A pre-AGM briefing on Glencore by IndustriALL global union can be found here and the union’s AGM report here. A pre-AGM investor briefing by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility can be found here. A post-AGM report by ShareAction is here. A video diary by ShareAction supporter Richard Murphy, who attended the AGM, is here. A post-AGM joint statement by LMN, ASK!, CNV, IndustriALL, Resist Glencore, Sintracarbon, Sintramienergetica, Solifonds, Tierra Digna and other organisations attending the AGM is here. A further briefing from an alliance of organisations including LMN can be found here. Our Glencore timeline can be found here.

I had never attended a Glencore AGM before. The company is listed on the under-regulated London Stock Exchange but registered in the UK-controlled tax haven of Jersey and headquartered in the Swiss Canton of Zug, where it holds its AGMs. Zug is regarded within the tax haven of Switzerland as a super tax haven. Swiss acceptance of an OECD agreement to make 15% the minimum corporate tax level means that Zug Canton has to raise its corporate tax level, but the Cantonal government has stated that it will give the extra tax back to Glencore to enable it to invest more in the communities affected by its activities.

The AGMs of other London-listed mining companies are bad enough, but Glencore’s failure to offer anything resembling adequate answers to any of the questions asked by representatives of workers and communities affected by their activities was utterly outrageous. But it was not ashamed to boast of its record-breaking profit and supposed contribution to saving the planet by mining more of the minerals needed for the transition to a lower carbon economy – and that while continuing to mine enormous quantities of thermal coal.

The AGM took place on 26 May. I attended along with colleagues from Swiss organisation Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien (Switzerland-Colombia Working Group), Colombian lawyers’ collective Tierra Digna, representatives of African-descent and Yukpa indigenous communities affected by the company’s Prodeco coal mine in the Colombian department of Cesar, Dutch trade union CNV, the mining section of global union IndustriALL, and unionised mine workers from Australia, Canada, Colombia, New Caledonia, Peru and Spain.

Opening remarks by Chairman Kalidas Madhavpeddi and CEO Gary Nagle were mercifully far shorter than those of their peers in other London-listed mining companies but equalled or even exceeded them in the level of self-praise.

The Chairman introduced the Question and Answer session, he stressed the need to be brief and to speak in either English or German, for which simultaneous interpretation was available through headsets. Interpretation for other languages would not be available. There were echoes here of the Anglo American AGM a month earlier, and the Chairman would be challenged on this.

After this song of praise, the question and answer session began. Right at the beginning, an elderly gentleman asked what the protest outside was about. What was the company doing to make people protest against it? Why were news media talking so badly about Glencore? What would the company do about it?

Chairman Kalidas Madhavpeddi said he did not know who it was who was demonstrating but that everyone has a right to express their opinion.

Apart from that, all but one question was critical. The Chairman kept asking for “business” questions. The main points of all the interventions and questions from our delegation were the damage to the environment, violations of human rights, violations of trade union rights and the right to collective bargaining. The delegates came to the AGM hoping for solutions and answers that they could not get in their respective countries or from the company’s subsidiaries. Glencore’s replies were consistently so brief as to be insulting. Most of the time, the Chairman emphasized that Glencore locally, i.e. the local subsidiary, maintains constructive relationships and dialogues with unions and other stakeholders, respecting freedom of association and human rights – despite the evidence being presented that this was not the case. Frequently, the Chairman’s responses began by stating that he did not share the questioner’s view or viewpoint.

At the beginning of the question and answer session, Willie Gagnon, a French-Canadian, said that he wished to speak French because he had previously submitted his question in writing and therefore had the right to speak in one of the Swiss national languages. Madhavpeddi indicated that there was no translation and there was a long, amusing back-and-forth as to whether he could speak French or if he had submitted his question in writing at all. The microphone was turned off but Willie persisted. His question was about the Horn Smelter and the environmental problems around it. Chairman Madhavpeddi said that the installation is over a hundred years old and has been run by a variety of companies, including Canadian ones. Glencore has an aggressive strategy to invest and bring emissions down, which has been agreed with the Canadian government, with which a baseline study has been carried out.

Richard Murphy, representing ShareAction from the UK, asked about indigenous rights and pollution around the McArthur River lead and zinc mine in Australia. The Chairman replied that Glencore respects indigenous rights and does not interfere with the exercise of indigenous culture and traditions. When a mine is on indigenous land, Glencore follows ICMM standards, and as an ICMM member it is also required to have engagement and consultation processes. They would seek good faith negotiations. They have the utmost respect for the First Nations.

Then Maurice van Beers of Dutch union CNV spoke on behalf of Luis Fernando Ramirez of Colombian union SINTRAMIENERGETICA and Alex Tinoco from the FENTECAMP union in Peru, whose questions he translated.

Maurice said that in Colombia there is a lack of good faith dialogue to find solutions to the problems caused by Glencore’s ill-prepared withdrawal from the Prodeco coal mine in the department of Cesar. The Colombian Government’s Department of Labour did not authorise the layoff of workers as Prodeco is still in operation. Nevertheless, Prodeco is now suing the CIADI. He asked: How much coal is Glencore Prodeco marketing at the moment? How does the company guarantee the implementation of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Resolutions 87 and 98?

The Chairman replied that Prodeco has invested $3 billion over the years and paid about $3 billion in royalties and taxes. The return of the mining title to the government and the reduction in the number of workers has been agreed with the government and Glencore is paying higher severance pay than the government is asking for. Prodeco still has around 1000 workers. Prodeco remains committed to fulfilling its commitments and is in dialogue with the unions. He said that some of the points made by Luis Fernando and Maurice were not correct.

Before Maurice could ask the questions about Peru, Madhavpeddi asked him to be brief, saying he would like some business questions as well. Maurice then explained that Alex had been fired twice for defending labour rights and reinstated twice thanks to court orders against Glencore’s subsidiary Volcan. For every direct worker there are seven outsourced temporary workers. They demand the right to collective bargaining and decent working conditions. Glencore violates the law and refuses to negotiate despite court orders. That is why the temporary workers in Peru and Switzerland have filed complaints with the OECD.

Chairman Madhavpeddi replied that Glencore does not restrict the right to collective bargaining or freedom of association. These allegations are untrue. The workers who were fired had walked off their jobs, which is why Peruvian law provides for dismissal. Glencore has proposed talks, but the union has made further demands, so the issue should be discussed with Volcan, not Glencore.

A representative of Spanish trade union, Nacho Requena, spoke of the health problems in the Asturiana der Zink company: Glencore replied that the health and safety of the workers was a top priority. Asturiana de Zink complies with all Spanish and EU laws and Glencore policies. However, Glencore will continue to invest in order to improve the situation even further.

Dominic Lemieux of Canada, of Workers Uniting North America, IndustriAll’s Vice Director Mining, speaking generally and for Canada: in Canada Glencore was convicted of unfairly firing workers who voted against a Glencore agreement and of anti-union behaviour. In addition, there are far too many subcontract workers. IndustriAll is also calling for a steering committee to discuss these issues at international level.

Chairman Madhavpeddi replied that he did not agree with much of what Dominic had said. He said that 70% of Glencore workers are unionized and Glencore supports the right of all workers to join a union. Union-company negotiations would be conducted principally at local level, applying best practice at both national and global levels. Every country and every subsidiary is very different, so solutions are better worked out locally, but Glencore sometimes checks in virtually to see how things are going. Glencore considers a centralization of negotiations to be unproductive.

Pierre Tuiteala of Prony Resources in New Caledonia said that there had never been a union meeting with Glencore since Glencore took over the mine in 2012. This exchange used to exist when Xstrata (later absorbed by Glencore) ran the operations. This shows that Glencore does not want unions. Glencore must change its behaviour towards the workers. Investing in a country does not make the company the bosses there: the company has to respect communities and unions. Unions are partners, not opponents. Glencore cannot continue to dictate everything. We are in the 21st century. Glencore and the unions have rights and responsibilities. Glencore now has to sit at a table and look for solutions. Pierre hoped that this message has been heard and understood and that union and company could now meet.

Chairman Madhavpeddi replied that Glencore respects human rights worldwide. This is part of its business philosophy. It respects every worker’s right to join a union. He said he did not understand what the problem had been in New Caledonia, but if Pierre is still employed by Glencore, this is a good opportunity to speak to New Caledonia management. He said he did not know if Pierre still worked at Glencore or what his situation may be, but he could assure him that human rights are respected.

Hilda Arrieta from El Paso, Cesar, Colombia, posed questions about how Glencore intends to repair the damage done to women and young people in the African-Colombian communities who have no prospects and whose livelihoods were destroyed by the mine, how Glencore will comply with environmental standards and how it will repair the damage to people’s health.

Chairman Madhavpeddi said Prodeco currently employs around 1,000 people, including both direct employees and subcontractors. If they dismiss people, they would pay significantly more severance pay than the state requires, and they are in talks with the government about returning mining titles. He did not address the issues about which Hilda had asked.

On behalf of Diana Alvarez of lawyers’ collective Tierra Digna, who work with communities affected by the Prodeco mine, Stephan Suhner of ASK spoke about the legal process for transparency and participation. In December 2022 a court ruled that there should be round table talks between communities, government and the company, but these have still not been convened by Prodeco, and there are currently at least five concrete threats against community leaders for criticising the mining operations. Stephan asked: 1) how threatened leaders will be protected, 2) when the round table talks will be convened and 3) whether Glencore is ready to commit to a just transition and repair the damage done.

Chairman Madhavpeddi thanked Stephan for his long-standing commitment to Colombia. He said that Glencore Prodeco is deeply engaged with communities through the Environmental Transition Plan. The round table talks and thus Prodeco’s next constructive steps could only take place after Colombian environmental agency ANLA had made certain decisions. Glencore also has a constructive engagement with Colombian civil society, through the Swiss government and embassy. Glencore is willing to be present at a virtual meeting with Tierra Digna and Prodeco. However, Glencore firmly rejects threats and condemns them. Company Chief Executive Gary Nagle was extremely insistent on this point. These threats must be reported. Glencore will be supportive. In addition, the results of the third Human Rights Impact Assessment [done by Trust Consultores on behalf of Prodeco, and focused on mine closure and relinquishment] will be communicated soon.

Yukpa representatives Esneda Saavedra and Luis Joaquin Uribe explained the destruction of their living space by Glencore’s dumping of mining waste in their territory, and the violation of their rights, as well as the high infant mortality rate due to pollution and the danger of cultural and physical extermination. If Glencore does nothing, the company will become an accomplice in a genocide. Stopping the damage Glencore is causing is a matter of life and death for the indigenous people. Yukpa representative Juan Pablo Gutierrez asked if Glencore would stop the process of eradicating indigenous peoples or continue mining.

Chairman Madhavpeddi thanked the Yukpas for coming a long way to speak at the AGM. He said that the court had rejected an appeal by the Yukpas in the fourth level, a commission is now reviewing the matter, and a further decision is awaited. Esneda, speaking in Spanish, mentioned how environmental pollution is partly responsible for the deaths of up to 40 children a year. The Chairman replied that he completely disagreed with this claim and that Glencore was not aware of the situation. The company would do anything necessary to prevent pollution and he did not think there is any pollution problem causing child deaths.

Stephan would have liked to ask what the role of the parent company and the board is when all problems are to be solved locally, since according to the Chairman there are constructive relationships everywhere, or what the board is going to do when almost two dozen people, mainly from the Global South, come along the AGM come to ask for solutions. He also wondered what the purpose of the third Human Rights Impact Assessment is if Glencore has no idea about the Yukpa people’s problems.

Liz Umlas from IndustriALL global union presented questions on behalf of Juan Carlos Solano, from mine workers’ union Sintracarbon at the Cerrejon coal mine in Colombia. Workers complain about their health problems not being taken seriously or treated correctly, about excessive outsourcing and about the non-involvement of workers in discussions about just transition and mine closure. These were issues should be resolved with good faith dialogue. 226 workers had been fired. Work shifts had been increased from four to seven days – the ‘Death Shift’ – without increasing wages. When would pay this wage debt be paid?

Chairman Madhavpeddi said that the changes had been communicated to workers, and there had been constructive discussions with the union to strengthen the health and safety of the workforce with the new scheme. In his view, the negotiations have been very constructive so far and should come to an end sooner or later, some time later this year. So from a company perspective things are going well and negotiations have continued.

I had questions about Cerrejón Coal in Colombia and the Antapaccay copper mine in Peru, but before asking the questions I noted that I had been attending the AGMs of various mining companies in London for 30 years, and had never attended a meeting where community representatives from around the world had been given such utterly inadequate replies to their questions, politely delivered, but the shortness and inadequacy of which were a form of deep disrespect towards people who were suffering gravely because of Glencore’s operations. I said that Anglo American, whose former CEO Cynthia Carroll is now on the board of Glencore and was in the room, goes out of its way at its AGMs to give lengthy answers, albeit inadequate from our point of view, to the questions that are posed. I said I was horrified at the utter inadequacy of the answers which the Chairman had given and trusted that next year things would be different.

I then asked about Cerrejon Coal. Under what conditions would Glencore consider withdrawing its claim against the Colombian Government for the court ruling in favour of the rights of the Wayuu Indigenous Peoples in the Bruno Creek case? What new remedial measures or actions has Glencore taken following the call by the Swiss National Contact Point to perform due diligence duties? If a sale of coal assets by Glencore takes place, what measures are contemplated to ensure a responsible departure and fulfilment of its obligations under the mine closure plan? After the coal marketing buyout, is Glencore directly marketing Colombian coal from Switzerland? What policy does Glencore have to address impacts on the health of the populations near its mining operations? I said that once the Chairman had given an adequate answer to those questions I would ask about Peru.

The Chairman said he thought I had already dismissed his answers before he had given them. I said that he should give his answers and then we could see whether they were adequate. The Chairman said I had rejected all the answers he had given prior to my questions. I pointed out that they were too short and utterly inadequate and suggested that perhaps Cynthia Carroll could advise him on the matter. The Chairman said he was trying to give succinct answers to people’s questions and to answer as many questions as possible. I asked whether he would answer the questions I had just asked.

He began with the issue of whether, if the company sells the coal business, it would continue to honour its obligations. He said that the answer is yes. On Bruno Creek, the Chairman said that both he and the CEO had been in the area last year and had walked the entire length of the creek and saw the remediation and the work done to restore the creek which, he said, flows more than it ever did. He said that there are now jaguars there. There is a tremendous amount of flora and fauna, and it has been “pretty much restored to the way it was, if not even better.” I suggested that it had not been restored to its original course. CEO Gary Nagle added that Bruno Creek was moved in accordance with an authorisation by the government. It was then challenged in the courts and is currently going through the courts and like any law-abiding citizen Glencore is keeping the order of the courts and will wait for the final order of the courts when the process finally runs its course. At the moment Cerrejon is not mining in the area, as instructed by the courts, and the company will wait until the courts make the final determination.

The fact that Cerrejon Coal illegally diverted the Bruno Creek in the first place was not mentioned. The fact that it was ordered to return the creek to its original course and failed to do so was not mentioned. But this seems consistent with Glencore’s behaviour in other places – challenge court decisions until no further challenge is legally possible, and meanwhile sap the spirit and drain the energy of the affected communities who have brought the complaint in the first place. Glencore can easily outspend them – it’s loaded!

I moved on to the Antapaccay operations in Peru and the case of community leader Sergio Huamani. On 11 May this year he was given a suspended sentence of one year in prison and order to pay ten thousand Peruvian soles, or 2700 US dollars, to Glencore’s Antapaccay subsidiary, as a result of alleged ‘defamation’. Was Glencore management in Switzerland aware of this lawsuit? Was the order to sue Sergio Huamani taken by the directors of Antapaccay or the directors of Glencore? Human rights organisations in Peru and elsewhere view this case as an attempt to silence social leaders who are critical of Antapaccay’s operations. Sergio Huamani has been repeatedly charged since 2012. What is the Glencore board’s view on this? Did the company every consider talking to Sergio Huamani or dropping the charges against him in exchange for a public apology?

The Chairman answered that the board was not aware of ‘this gentleman and his case’. I said that it amazed me that a multinational mining company is not aware of what is going on around its operations. I said that in thirty years I had never come across a mining multinational that appeared so ignorant of what is going on.

Gary Nagle cut in to say that he thought this criticism was wholly unfair. Glencore is represented in around forty countries around the world [note the lack of exactitude here] with 135000 employees and contractors. It is a very complex business and the board of directors tries to get across all the major issues. The board is not aware of the specific details of this particular issue. Now that I had raised it, the board would be quite willing to look into it. However, if this gentleman was charged and found guilty by an independent court of law in the country, that is not Glencore who is finding him guilty, and he has recourse under law. Gary Nagle did not want to get into a debate about whether the court decision was right or wrong. It is everyone’s obligation to comply with the laws around the world, and the directions of courts around the world, and the company does so. However, because the issue had been raised now at the AGM, the board would look at it. There are hundreds of issues around the world and it is impossible for the board to be involved in every single issue in every single country around the world. That is why the board has empowered management to deal with that under the laws of the country and under the directions of the courts.

I replied that I had never thought that I might want to suggest that anyone might learn anything from Rio Tinto, BHP or Anglo American, but I thought that the Glencore board might learn from their ability to answer questions adequately at AGMs.

There was then a question about what the company buys from or sells to Russia. The answer was that Glencore’s involvement with Russia is historical and that all it retains is some shares that it is unable to sell. It has no assets in Russia, just two minority passive stakes in two listed companies. It sells no products into Russia. It is entering into no new Russian business since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Existing contracts have been terminated where they have been sanctioned, or have run out, or the company is obliged by law to continue to fulfill. The last such contract, an aluminium contract, is scheduled to complete by the end of next year.

Helena Muellenbach asked how the company would pay for the reparations for damage caused by Glencore’s operations in the Global South that have resulted in the physical and cultural extermination of Indigenous Peoples. How will it ever repair the damage that it has done?

The Chairman said that the statement was completely contrary to what he had said earlier on. Glencore respects the human rights of all people around the world and he was unsure what Helena was specifically addressing and therefore had no way to respond.

Helena clarified by asking him to respond to the issue of diversion of rivers in indigenous territories that had caused the deaths of people who had lived in their ancestral territories for thousands of years.

Chairman Madhavpeddi said that in any country where the company has to divert rivers, they seek permission from the government through a formal process with risk assessment. The company does not divert rivers without the necessary permits.

Another speaker said that he had noticed that the company did not give information about mine closures, the reasons for them and their effects in its reporting. Why the lack of clarity?

The Chairman replied that for every mine that Glencore develops, it creates life of mine plans, including closure plans, addressing environmental issues. It is also working on a framework for a just transition for a lot of facilities. Most of the company’s mines are fairly long life but the framework should address some of those questions. The reason for closing a mine is usually that it has reached the end of its economic life.

A French-speaking shareholder asked, speaking in French first and then translating her remarks into English, whether the board would take into account the great number of questions and the general nature of those questions. It is a matter of the business of the company, she said. The Chairman said that the board would do so, but some of the questions had been very general and it is hard to come up with an answer to such general questions. On specific issues, however, the board would look into them.

Naomi Hogan, of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, introduced Resolution 19. She said that the Resolution had received a huge amount of support among shareholders and proxy advisors. The Resolution calls for better disclosure in order to aid understanding of how Glencore’s thermal coal business is aligned with the company’s own climate commitments to the Paris Agreement and the objective of keeping the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. The Resolution grew out of observation of the company’s commitments and its plans to expand coal production in Australia by expanding and extending existing coal mines and opening new coal mines. The Resolution had been co-filed with other institutional investors including LGIM (Legal and General Investment Management), HSBC, Vision Super and Ethos Foundation on behalf of Swiss pension funds. In the Notice of Meeting the board had discredited the Resolution and encouraged investors to vote against it but Naomi was sure, despite not yet knowing the voting figures, that there had been considerable interest in the Resolution [in fact it achieved a very significant vote of 29% in favour, forcing the board to enter into talks with its co-filers]. Would the board consider taking on board the Resolution for its climate plan next year and including enhanced disclosure so that investors could understand the thermal coal business in relation to the company’s climate commitments?

Chairman Mahdavpeddi replied that the board had engaged with ACCR before the Resolution had been filed. The board would certainly look at the voting on it and then engage with shareholders and seek a way forward.

Naomi said that it had been very difficult for ACCR to get a meeting with the board though they appreciated the meeting that they did have. They would certainly like a further meeting.

Naomi then asked about the expansion of the Glendale coal mine in Australia, which the company had admitted had been rejected. But media comments in Australia by Glencore suggested that the company intended to fight the heritage listing and push ahead with the mine despite the fact that it would impact both colonial and indigenous cultural heritage. Is it the board’s intention to respect the decision of Australian regulators to reject this mine and to respect the heritage nomination of this site to protect it?

Company CEO Gary Nagle thanked Naomi for travelling such a long way to speak at the AGM. He thanked Naomi for ACCR’s constructive engagement on Resolution 19. The results of the vote were as yet unknown and the board would wait to see what it was. A pure disclosure resolution would have been acceptable but Resolution 19 crossed a boundary in terms of governance and strategy-setting. The board had said this in discussion with ACCR and suggested some amendments which ACCR had not wanted to accept. Strategy is the role of the board. It is then for the shareholders to vote on the strategy set by the board. It was on that basis that the board had recommended that shareholders vote against the resolution. Here would in any case be engagement with shareholders on the company’s climate policy. The company committed to issuing a climate strategy every three years. A refreshed strategy would be put out to shareholders for votes next year and the board would take into account all ACCR’s feedback and disclosure requirements and the requirements of all their other stakeholders and shareholders. He said that Glendale had been rejected on cultural heritage grounds and the company respects the decisions of courts and regulators. But it is appealing the decision because that is its right under law. The company will continue to appeal when it believes that the decisions made were incorrect. If the final court decision is against expanding the mine, the company will abide by that. The company has utmost and absolute respect for Native Title and heritage rights.

Naomi responded that although at the meeting between the board and ACCR the company had undertaken to be in touch with ACCR with proposed changes to the Resolution, that follow up never took place. Other co-filers were disappointed with the lack of engagement from Glencore on this serious Resolution. On the Glendale expansion, Naomi found it disturbing, given the company’s policy of respect for Native Title and heritage, that Glencore would push back against a finding by the Australian government and the Heritage Commission of New South Wales that this is a significant cultural heritage site for First Nations people and she implored the board to take a different approach and to respect the rejection of the project by Australian regulators.

Naomi then asked about the Hunter Valley coal operations with Yancoal in New South Wales. This mine would create a huge amount of methane and the regulators are concerned that this would interfere with Australia’s climate commitments. In its application, Glencore had not made any attempt to prevent these methane emissions. What improvements would the board make to the company’s methane strategy?

Gary Nagle replied that the Hunter Valley Operation extension was considered in the company’s climate strategy, which sees Glencore’s coal production reducing by at least 50% by 2035. Hunter Valley is a steam coal operation joint venture with Yancoal. There are no major concerns with methane associated with that mine.

Naomi pointed out that media reports the previous week had said that the regulator found differently, and she implored the company to look more carefully at the methane emissions expected from that extension. Gary Nagle said that where Glencore’s mines do produce large quantities of methane, the company ensures significant abatement, but that regulators had not raised methane as an issue with the Hunter Valley mine.

Naomi’s final question was about the Yolan coal mine. ACCR had heard from local residents that Glencore is considering a major expansion of that underground longwall mine, which is planned to run until 2033 and had had significant issues with water. There were fears that local residents could lose access to water. Had there been board level discussion of this planned expansion? Gary Nagle said that there had been no board level discussion of this mine at this stage.

An elderly shareholder then congratulated the Chairman on the company’s record, saying that Glencore creates a lot of good in the world. She said she was a long-standing shareholder and had seen a number of Glencore’s mines, so she knew what they did in the world, and she would like to thank the board for everything. She was enthusiastically applauded by other shareholders for whom the litany of human rights abuses and environmental destruction which they had just heard had clearly produced a similarly defensive reaction. The Chairman thanked her for her remarks, called for voting and closed the meeting.

After the end of the meeting, various delegates were able to speak to the CEO, the Chairman or other Glencore managers. Stephan Suhner spoke to Gary Nagle and Kalidas Mahdavpeddi and expressed his concern about the threats, lack of dialogue and non-implementation of the Tutela [a kind of legal case] ruling in the case of the Prodeco mine in Colombia, saying that this is creating an environment in which threats can emerge. He did not suggest that Prodeco/Glencore makes or commissions the threats, but that they have to be very careful about what they do and say in order not to create a basis for threats. He also said that Prodeco’s Human Rights Impact Assessment is insufficient. Gary Nagle said he agreed there should be no threats. Anna Krutikov, another Glencore official, said that she would discuss the matter with Prodeco, particularly the fact that in December 2022 Prodeco had published the Tutela on its website with the addresses, mobile phone numbers, and other contact details of those who had brought the case, after which threats against them had begun. This was not acceptable, she agreed.

So much of what Glencore’s subsidiaries and operations around the world are doing is not acceptable! Those of us in the global alliance of organisations working to hold this company to account will increase our co-ordinated efforts to bring an end to its abuses.