Rio Tinto’s AGM 2026: Rio Tinto says it is “very committed” but actions speak louder than words

Louis Kent, the Sector Strategies Leader at ACCR, said that ACCR works alongside institutional investors focusing on long-term shareholder value and the decarbonisation of higher emitting sectors, including mining and steel. ACCR considers this to be in the interests of all shareholders. He said he had two questions, one on iron ore and one on operational decarbonisation.

Rio Tinto’s recent disclosures emphasised continued investment in expanding and sustaining its iron ore system, particularly in the Pilbara, which remains the core of the company’s earnings, alongside significant investments in projects such as Simandou. Progress on low emissions iron-making remains only at pilot scale. Could you comment on the strategy for Pilbara in a future low emissions steel system? How is the board overseeing risk to long-term value in the Pilbara and what concrete actions are being taken this decade to ensure these assets remain competitive as green steel demand grows?

Over the past decade, Australia’s gas production has doubled and the gas industry claims that the continued pursuit of large gas projects will bring down prices for Australian manufacturing. However, rather than bringing down the cost to consumers, wholesale gas prices on Australia’s East Coast have roughly quadrupled. Right now the gas industry continues to pursue some of the largest proposed gas projects in Australia’s history, claiming it will bring down prices for Australian manufacturing and that they have the interests of manufacturers at heart. However, Rio Tinto’s investment decisions and disclosures point to a structural decline in reliance on fossil fuels to ensure economic longevity. Is it Rio’s view that long term gas reliance is not in the interests of the business and that Rio Tinto is doing all it can to decarbonise operations and remove reliance on gas as soon as possible? 

Dominic Barton replied that Rio Tinto will continue to invest heavily in iron ore. The company sees a lot of demand for steel over the coming decades and Pilbara is going to remain a very important part of that. It is working with its customers, primarily in China but also in joint venture with some of its competitors, to look for ways to advance green steel manufacturing. It has some experiments going on in Canada with the IOC [Iron Ore Company of Canada]. It wants to work on the gas situation and is doing a lot on the decarbonisation targets that it has set to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% in 2030 and to be Net Zero by 2050. It is doing this in all the key areas. Aluminium is a big part of that. In decarbonising, the company is looking for renewable power for its smelters but also doing everything it can in the Pilbara on looking again for alternatives, whether that be solar power or other power sources. He asked Matt Holcz, who leads on iron ore, to add more detail.

Matt Holcz said he would touch on the lower emissions pathways first of all. At Pilbara, Rio Tinto is focusing on partnerships. It has a local partnership with Calix on Zesty technology, looking at a pathway to green steel, and also the Neosmelt joint venture in partnership with Woodside, BHP, Blue Scope and others, and it will be building facilities just south of Perth. It is also doing a lot of work in the Pilbara with its customers looking at its product mix and at different ways for them to be able to reduce their emissions downstream. A key part of the IOC project is producing pellets, which are a very important feed into low emissions pathways for steel. At Simandou, as the company gets lower down in the ore body it will be able to access really high grade material that will be suitable for direct reduction.

Stephen Power, from Jesuits in Britain, part of a Catholic religious order with provinces around the world, noted that Jesuits in Britain had engaged with Rio Tinto for three or four years, particularly on its operations in Madagascar. He said that Jesuits in Britain are now considering divesting from the company because of several issues that they found problematic. Engagement on Madagascar had been over water and water supply. Company spokespeople had been very polite in responding to questions and had issued invitations to meetings, but key information on water reports had regularly come late and without the detail required or not at all. Concerns on the water contamination remain and conflict around the mine has yet to be resolved. 

There is also concern about development of iron ore mining at Simandou in Guinea. The company itself saw its involvement as a very big investment, and this necessarily involves considerable ecological damage and displacement of people. This is in the context of fragile government. 

Stephen said he would also like to discuss scope 3 emissions, which seem very unlikely to be subject to realistic targets, mostly because of iron ore processing in China. He explained that the Jesuit position was based on a broad assessment of mining contained in a document the Jesuits had put together and launched in Rome a few months earlier, ‘Catholic approaches to mining’ which would become better known in the future. Would the Chairman comment on any of those issues? The Jesuits are concerned about their present investment.

Dominic Barton replied that the company’s water quality reports were assessed by external groups. The fourth report about water quality at QMM was released in April. The results remained consistent with previous years. Readings for all of the regulated metals from water quality testing points upstream and downstream of QMM’s authorised release point were consistently below laboratory limits of detection. The company will continue to test water quality. It has also invested a fair bit in trying to manage significant flows that occur during storm surges.

At Simandou, he said, the company is ensuring that it builds the project in a very ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) compliant way. This includes everything from the environment, water, the people that are involved, the communities, to the western chimpanzee and to elephants. All of these are taken into account in the design and the process.

On scope 3 emissions, Rio Tinto does not have targets. He said, “I’d just be very blunt about that. It’s not something we believe we can control and we’ve had many discussions with our investors about it. That doesn’t mean we don’t care about it, that we aren’t involved.” He said that the company was involved with its customers and even with some of its competitors on making ‘green’ steel but it is not possible to measure scope 3 emissions and so Rio Tinto is focused on scope 1 and 2 primarily, taking some very specific measures. It is also looking at the supply side, which is in scope 3, with its shipping, but it does not have targets on scope 3 because it does not believe it can actually deliver and measure the results.

Eddy Velomila, representing the FANDROMBO platform, the voice of the communities of Anosy in Madagascar, greeted the board and shareholders. The sound quality on the internet connection from Madagascar was unfortunately not good.

Eddy said:

“Let me be clear: after more than 15 years of QMM’s presence, we’re no longer at the stage of promises. We’re at the stage of results, or the lack thereof.

The situation is clear.

On the ground:

• local recruitment remains insufficient,

• market access is blocked for local actors,

• concerns about water, health, and the environment persist,

• and the QMM social responsibility programme has not produced any visible, structural transformations at local level.

This isn’t an isolated perception. It’s a lived reality.

So, let’s ask the real question.

Where are the concrete positive impacts for local people after decades of Rio Tinto/QMM in Anosy?

The problem isn’t technical; it’s systemic.

Commitments exist.

But:

• they are not enforced,

• they are not transparent,

• and they are not monitored.

In short: the system may be working for QMM – but not for our communities.

So, the fundamental question:

Is Rio Tinto truly ready to share the value created here?

Or will it continue mining operations where profits are concentrated for Rio Tinto but the negative impacts are borne by the communities?

As it is, the current QMM model is not sustainable.

And it will no longer be accepted.

We are not asking for further discussion or debate.

We demand immediate changes.

Our demands are clear:

We want your public commitments and a clear timeline for Rio Tinto to deliver:

1. Total Transparency

• Publication of recruitment, contracts, and CSR budgets

• an independent monitoring mechanism to measure results and impact

2. Economic Justice

• Genuine priority given to local recruitment

• Guaranteed access to markets for local businesses

3. Truth about Water, Health, and the Environment

• Published independent impact assessments and analyses

• Rigorous health monitoring

• Application of the polluter-pays principle

Because the health of the population is non-negotiable.

We want these commitments. Not in five years, but now.

Our position is firm:

We are not against mining. But we reject:

• mining without justice,

• development without inclusion

• wealth without redistribution

In conclusion:

We are not against development, nor against resource exploitation.

But we demand that it be equitable, transparent, and beneficial to all.

Development that excludes the population is not development.

Wealth that does not benefit the community is an injustice.

We demand immediate change: concrete, measurable, and sustainable actions – all assured by a monitoring system comprised of a local Technical Commission and Social Commission, independent and created for this purpose.

Thank you.”

Dominic Barton said that Eddy’s points were very clear but he sought to summarise. He said he thought the first point was that “after fifteen years we’re not at the stage of promises” and that Eddy was “pushing on the notion of what’s the local community benefit that you want to see; water and health; and independent oversight of where we are”.

He said: “We are very much committed to wanting to be supporting the community.” He said that this support comes in the form of direct and indirect employment. About 1700 people are employed in Fort Dauphin. Rio Tinto provides the power for the city with solar and wind power. It has also committed to $100 million over the next number of years to support communities. He said he knew there had been “some tension as to who gets what where, but that’s a commitment that we want to make.”

Bold Baatar, Chief Executive of Rio Tinto Copper, added that Rio Tinto takes its social licence very seriously, in particular being a good neighbour. Since it got into QMM it has invested over a billion dollars including building a port that provides necessary emergency access but also export routes for the products that are made in Madagascar. With the original power plant and now the new renewable energy plant Rio Tinto supplies power into the city of Fort Dauphin, which has a population of about 80,000. In addition, the company built a water treatment plant and is working with Jarama, the local electricity and water utility, to distribute the water to the communities, who are going through a $1.4 million water treatment infrastructure rehabilitation programme. He said that the Chairman had alluded to the $100 million programme that Rio Tinto had committed to after the renegotiation of the investment agreement in 2023. He said that the company wants to improve and to find ways to improve local content and local suppliers so he would be happy to engage further on this topic to discuss what else the company could do in terms of procurement of local services.

Tracy, a West Australian shareholder, asked, “How does the board assure itself that Rio Tinto is maintaining sufficient senior geoscience capability and upfront geological knowledge development to manage geological risk and protect long-term shareholder value, particularly in the context of ongoing productivity and organisational changes across the group? What indicators or assurance mechanisms does the board rely on to assure that geological uncertainty is not being deferred in a way that increases future operational capital or value risk?”

Dominic Barton replied that CEO Simon Trott is reinforcing the company’s policy of moving more of the company’s resources to where the mineral assets are, rather than concentrating them in London. The audit and risk committee does regular reviews of a whole range of risks. On the geotechnical side of things, Chief Technical Officer Mark Davies comes in regularly to speak to the board, and the company has placed its various different operating sites on a spectrum of risk, so the board does have that oversight as well as having mining expertise on the board.

Matt Holcz added that he worried about the level of interest in mining and the number of graduates coming through technical disciplines. He said there is work that Rio Tinto can do around that. The company needs to do a better job of articulating the amazing job and career opportunities there are in mining. A business like the Pilbara has all the aspects that people should want to work in, from some of the highest technology through to some of the technical disciplines and roles. He said he thought the company could really inspire people to come and join it.

Laura O’Shea said she represented the Climate Action 100+ investor group, which speaks on behalf of interested investors. She said she acknowledged that the Chair had already touched on some of the subject matter of her question. She thanked the board for its continued commitment to Net Zero by 2050 and for the progress made in decarbonising Rio Tinto’s operation and value chain to date and the expansion of the transition materials business. “This time last year, 93% of shareholders supported the 2025 Climate Action Plan. However, a number of developments over the past twelve months, when viewed together, have led some investors to question whether the focus on decarbonisation is being reduced. These include changes to climate governance and remuneration weighting, delays to decarbonisation technologies and reduced capital guidance to 2030. While each of these changes may be reasonable in isolation, in aggregate they raise a few questions about delivery. Please could the board outline how it expects to deliver its 2030 targets and the key execution risks it’s managing in this context?” 

Dominic Barton replied, “I would just say at the outset, as I said before, we’re very committed to the targets that we set.” The company committed to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 15% in 2025, and hit 14%. It is committed to reducing those emissions 50% by 2030 and achieve Net Zero in 2050. Rio Tinto is also doing things to be nature positive. It is very committed. He added, “One thing I feel very strongly about is, there’s a lot of talk out there about what people do that Rio Tinto is actually doing.” The company is very confident about being able to deliver on the 50% reduction. It has made significant investments. On the aluminium side, at Boyne the company has installed 2.8 gigawatts of renewable power, the single largest conversion from coal power to renewable power. It’s in the shareholders’ interest to be driving that. He listed several other projects on which the company is working: the Gladstone repowering programme, which he said is very significant on a global scale; the Pilbara renewables and electrification programme, involving solar and wind battery storage and transmission upgrades; the electric smelting programme; the iron ore steel partnerships; and the development of electric smelting technology, which involves scope 3 emissions even though the company does not have a target for it; zero carbon aluminium smelting, including major investments in the Saguenay in Quebec; the Evolis Biocarbon project to replace fossil carbon inputs in aluminium processing; Kennecott renewable diesel conversion in Utah; a renewable electricity procurement programme in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Madagascar and the United States. 

He said that the company had made an adjustment by lowering the decarbonisation target from 15% to 10% but raised the safety number on it. This will make the task harder for management because they will have to deliver on the decarbonisation, so it is not about less emphasis but about the focus on safety. He mentioned again the set of management initiatives that CEO Simon Trott is driving to put more of Rio Tinto’s resources where the assets are. He said the company believes that this will accelerate and reinforce the decarbonisation process. “We’re committed, we actually think it makes us perform better as a business, so it’s in our interest to do it and we will continue to drive that forward.”

Shareholder Morgan Pickett asked about use of gas in the same terms that Louis Kent of ACCR had earlier (see above). “Over the past decade, Australia’s gas production has doubled but, rather than bringing down the cost to consumers, wholesale gas prices on Australia’s East Coast have actually quadrupled. Clearly supply is not the solution to bringing down costs, but right now the gas industry continues to pursue some of the largest proposed gas projects in Australia’s history, claiming it will bring down prices for Australian manufacturing and really saying that it has the interests of manufacturers at heart. However, Rio Tinto’s investment decisions and disclosures even quite recently point to a structural decline in the reliance on fossil fuels and a shift towards more renewable uptake. Is it Rio’s view that long-term gas reliance is not in the interest of the business and that Rio Tinto is doing all it can to decarbonise its operations and move its reliance on gas, and this is coming from a place of economic rationality rather than just altruism?”

Dominic Barton replied that Rio Tinto right now is more reliant on natural gas in its operations and will need that for the medium term, but fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive and the Iran war is just magnifying that, so electrification and fuel switching underpinned by renewable and electricity is something that the company wants to drive towards. It is in its business interest to try and do it. As an example, it is commissioning a hydrogen calcination pilot at the Yarwun aluminium refinery to try and demonstrate the viability of replacing natural gas. It is also building new solar and partnering with traditional owner groups on that front to try to replace gas as much as it can but obviously there are some limits to the technology.

Simon Trott added that the company has “aggressive” targets and is making progress on them. It is decarbonising its business as it makes good commercial sense.

The next question came from Keren Adams, Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre (HLRC) in Melbourne, which represents communities in Bougainville living with major ongoing environmental and social devastation caused by Rio Tinto’s former Panguna mine. 

Keren said: “For the benefit of those unfamiliar with this situation, Panguna was a copper and gold mine formerly owned by Rio Tinto and operated by its subsidiary, Bougainville Copper Ltd. Over the time of its operation, over a billion tonnes of mine tailings waste was directly disposed into local rivers, causing massive environmental and social impacts for local Indigenous communities. The environmental damage caused by the mine was so substantial that it ultimately caused a social uprising that forced the mine’s abandonment. Rio Tinto divested from the mine in 2016, without any clean up or remediation of the site having been undertaken.

“Four years ago, in response to the legal complaint brought by communities about the massive problems they are still experiencing, Rio Tinto agreed to fund an independent environmental and human rights impact assessment of the mine. 

“In December 2024, the results of Phase 1 of that impact assessment were released and found major environmental, social and human rights impacts in every domain assessed, including some life-threatening risks to local people from collapsing levees and infrastructure, chemicals left by the mining operation and from mine-related flooding.

“Rio Tinto committed at that time to working with all stakeholders to establish a remedy fund to address these impacts and to advancing work as a first priority to address the most serious risks and impacts identified. While some steps have been taken since then, work on the ground has been very slow to progress and the remedy fund is not yet set up.

“As you know, in mid-April, Bougainville was hit by Cyclone Maila, which has further heightened many of the risks and impacts communities are facing. A section of the main levee, which had already been highlighted as a major risk in the impact assessment, is now predicted to collapse within the coming days, potentially causing serious injuries or fatalities to people living and working nearby. 

“So my two questions to you are: Is Rio Tinto committed to mobilising its full expertise and resources to accelerate action to prevent loss of life in the Panguna area? Will the company now commit to a clear time-frame for the establishment of the remedy fund to ensure the site can be properly remediated and risks to public health and safety addressed?”

Dominic Barton replied that it had been very good to meet with Keren the day before in Perth. He said he wanted to clarify the background to Rio Tinto’s withdrawal from Panguna. He said that Rio Tinto, through BCL (Bougainville Copper Limited) was operating in Panguna but had to evacuate under extreme circumstances because of the outbreak of civil war. [He did not mention that pollution from the mine had helped trigger the war.] Company personnel had been unable to maintain the mine site. Rio Tinto is “very much committed” to trying to work out a remedy to the pollution that has occurred as a result. It has been funding and supporting some basic clean-up work and as it works with the Autonomous Bougainville Government it also works with the BCL to try and figure out what the remedy is.

He also acknowledged the devastation caused by the recent cyclone. He said that Theonila (a community leader and member of the government in Bougainville) had joined discussions as a community representative in the group just talking about what is happening there. The company will continue to do everything it can to help. “We have to work through other people,” he said, “because we’re not on the ground, and as you know we have some engineers who are trying to help with the levees where I know there are people that are living in those places near unstable walls and so forth, and we’ll continue to do everything we can. We’re very committed on that front.” He added that the leadership group is committed to working with the roundtable to figure out what the remedy will be.

Simon Trott reiterated that the company is “committed to the process of working with the roundtable” and to alleviating the immediate conditions in the wake of the cyclone.

Roger Featherstone, President of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition from Tucson, Arizona, in the United States, said: “I’m here to ask a question about your proposed Resolution Copper Project that would destroy Oak Flat, a Native American sacred site that is a recreational and ecological haven. At last year’s AGM, I asked you if you would stand by international human rights, transparency, and biodiversity protocols or if you would take the low road and cozy up to our government’s weakened standards. Your actions have spoken volumes in the last year. Your decision to merge your company’s AGMs has the effect of curtailing the ability of shareholders to sit face to face and ask you questions. I’ve attended your London AGMs for a dozen years. I’ve met with every one of your CEOs since Tom Albanese, yet this year your new CEO has refused to meet. This says a lot about your accountability.

“It gets much worse. On Friday March 13^th, less than 60 days ago, the US government, in a shady unprecedented and illegal manoeuvre, gave you the deed to Oak Flat. At least for now, you own a Native American sacred site. To be clear: you now own the land upon which a people go to worship. Your plan is to destroy Oak Flat. The US government has determined that Oak Flat and the surrounding area is sacred. The US Forest Service and the 9th Circuit Court has determined that you will destroy Oak Flat. You’ve done this without the basic fiduciary due diligence of conducting a feasibility study, which you need to even make a decision whether the project is feasible. Because Arizona is in the worst drought we faced in 1200 years, we don’t have enough water for both your mine project and our communities and the environment. And because the project is not technically and economically viable, if you write a feasibility study that is truly impartial, comprehensive and accurate, the only conclusion will be that you should not proceed with that project. The question I’ve asked you until I’m blue in the face is, when will you abandon the Resolution Copper Project and leave Oak Flat? And, for the first time, when you’ll give Oak Flat back to its rightful owners?” 

Dominic Barton thanked Roger for his comments. He said that he and Simon Trott are very keen to meet. He said that they were in London beyond AGM meetings and also travel to the US and other parts, so they can definitely follow up on this. He said that Rio Tinto had been involved with Resolution Copper since 2004. It has been following the US court processes all the way through and it defers to the court systems. There have been various groups that have not wanted the company to do various things. It has just gone through the legal process and pretty well every single court that is available in the United States because Roger and others have pushed it to be there. It has had approval from the last three administrations. It has now done the land exchange. He said, “I see a little bit of a different story than how you are portraying it, as you know there are a number of tribes that are across the different lands that are there and we’ve been having a lot of engagement with them over time and we’ve actually co-developed a cultural heritage management plan, and that includes co-management of the Resolution private lands and a complete physical avoidance of ancestral lands, specifically Apache Leap, which contains some of the most extensive ancestral sites.” He said that the Oak Flat campground, recreational roads and climbing areas on private land in the area will remain open for the foreseeable future. The campground will be managed by Four Winds Contracting, a company owned by a San Carlos Apache tribal member. It will oversee campground maintenance facilities and road access. He said that Rio Tinto is “very much committed to doing things properly”. He said that Rio Tinto and the Department of Forestry are looking at water usage, along with the town of Superior. This is very important for Rio Tinto and the company believes it can run one of the lowest water use copper mines certainly in Arizona but also one of the lowest in the world. The company is taking a range of initiatives and following the legal processes. The copper that’s there could provide 25% of US copper needs but the company is going to follow the process and not do anything unless it has permission.

Roger Featherstone pointed out that slavery was legal in the United States for a long time and slave owners followed the legal process. “Just because you can do something legally while you put your fingers on the scale while you lobby for land exchanges, while you tip the courts in your favour, doesn’t make it right.”

Katie Jackson, Head of Copper, added that she was grateful to Roger for travelling to London for the AGM. She said she was sorry that it was not possible to meet with him there but that the company had extended the opportunity to meet with its Head of Growth and Development, Adam Burley, as she herself was in Perth. She said that the team in Arizona engages with Roger and are keen to take his questions. She said that the project had gone through one of the most rigorous consultation processes of any project and changes had been made to the mine plan and to the land exchange on the basis of the feedback from the communities and the tribes. The company had reduced the land exchange by 830 acres. It has been engaged in a very long and extensive community consultation. Rio Tinto recognises that water is scarce but, as the Environmental Impact Statement had demonstrated and the Forestry Service had emphasised, there is an adequate supply for all the uses foreseen for 100 years. Rio Tinto is “very committed” to making this one of the lowest, if not the lowest, copper mining consumers of water.

Dominic Barton said that he would follow up on arranging a meeting between himself, Simon Trott and Roger Featherstone, if Roger would like.

Jason Masters, of the Robe River Kuruma people, said: “I stand here authorised by my Robe River Kuruma Elders to talk about water and what has been happening on our country. My name is Jason Masters. I am a proud Robe River Kuruma man and I speak on behalf of my Robe River Kuruma People.

“Two years ago, at your Brisbane AGM, we stood before this board and pleaded with you to stop the unsustainable water abstraction of Bungaroo Creek, abstraction that is killing our country. Since then, Rio Tinto has acknowledged these impacts are now not sustainable and has progressed with a desalination plant now nearing completion. But we’re here to make it clear it is not enough. It will not stop our country from dying if Rio Tinto continues its groundwater abstraction.

“In the two years since we first addressed this board, groundwater levels across our country have continued to fall. Permanent water holes have died. They’re gone. One of them is Yarala. This is the place where my grandmother was born, a sacred permanent water pool that held water through every drought our old people can remember, now dry for the first time in living memory. Even after heavy rainfall from cyclone Narelle, it remains dry today.

“Along the Bungaroo Creek and Jimmawurrada Creek great stands of river gums have died. These trees that stood when our grandparents were born are gone. They cannot be brought back. Rio Tinto will say that a desalination plant solves this. It does not. You will continue to extract groundwater from the Bungaroo aquifer after it is operational. This is only a partial solution to one ball field while another ball field continues to drain the same aquifer system. Your southern cutback licence for Mesa Jay allows abstraction of up to 30 gigalitres per year with no public commitment to reduce it.

“This is only the beginning. Rio Tinto also plans to mine our sacred Bungaroo and Jimmawurrada Creek. We sat with our old people when they told Rio Tinto very clearly that they did not consent to mining at these sacred places. Before they passed they’ve told us we must protect country. We have told Rio Tinto repeatedly since Juukan Gorge, ‘No means never.’ Our position has not changed. It cannot change and will not change.

“So today I have three questions.

“Question one: Restoration. A sacred water hole has died. River gums are dead. Groundwater levels continue to fall. What is your specific plan, with clear dates, to stop all abstraction from the Bungaroo coastal water supply and allow our country to recover.

“Question two: Irreversible impact. Ministerial Statement 1141 prohibits water abstraction that causes irreversible impacts to the Robe River and the Jimmawurrada Creek ecosystems. What does the board define as ‘irreversible impact’? And explain this: why are the deaths of long-lived river gums and the dying of Yarala not enough for you to stop abstraction?

“And the last question is around consent. After Juukan Gorge, this board committed to a values-driven approach and to Free Prior Informed Consent. The Robe River Kuruma people oppose mining the Bungaroo and Jimmawurrada. Always have, always will. Will this board commit today that Rio Tinto will not mine these areas without our Free, Prior and Informed Consent? This is a moment of truth. A ‘yes’ today shows you have learnt from Juukan Gorge. A ‘no’ or silence tells our people, your shareholders and the world, that nothing has changed.” 

Dominic Barton thanked Jason for his comments, his three questions and the time that he and colleagues spent with company management earlier in the week, outlining their position. He said that the company is “in pretty serious discussions on all the different elements of how we can possibly work together as we go forward”. It had listened at the Brisbane AGM, committed to the desalination plant and is doing everything it can to try to get water back into the system. He said the company recognised the challenges that are there but the company is looking for all the different ways to reduce its use of water from that aquifer dramatically. Regarding the irreversible impact and damage, the company is very keen to discuss with the Robe River Kuruma people what it can do to try and help deal with that as part of the overall agreement. On sacred lands, he said he thought a lot of progress had been made in that discussion. He noted the Robe River Kuruma people’s April 29th letter to Rio Tinto, which he said was very powerful and sets out what is most important to the people.

Matt Holcz added that he acknowledged that Jason had come to represent his people, and thanked him for doing so. He said he would like to start by building on the conversation held earlier in the week. He said he understood that water is not just a resource, it is life, and it has a very deep cultural and environmental impact. Rio Tinto has done a lot of work to reduce its abstraction. The desalination plant coming online in the second half of the year will further reduce the abstraction. He said he was committed to making sure that Rio Tinto engages in very transparent conversations with the Robe River Kuruma people on how it is going to go forward with the sustainable approach. He acknowledged that government will need to be involved in those conversations as that aquifer also supplies local communities. “In terms of that ongoing dialogue, you certainly have our commitment that we want to work towards a solution there,” he said. He said he wanted to “reference your point on the Bungaroo cultural precinct” and its importance to the Robe River Kuruma people “not just in terms of environment but particularly in terms of culture”.

He continued, “You’ve made your position there very clear and we certainly acknowledge that position as well.” But he did not commit to complying with that clear position. Nor did Dominic Barton.

Richard Solly asked about Rio Tinto’s planned Altoandinos lithium operations at the Salar de Maricunga in Chile’s Atacama Desert. He said that the project poses severe threats to the Colla indigenous people and that his questions were from the National Council of Colla Peoples.

1. Given that Atacama is an area of extreme water stress, where life and the ecosystems of the salt flats depend on limited aquifers, what concrete, measurable and independently verifiable assurances can Rio Tinto provide that its current or future operations will not extract fossil water or continue to deplete our territory?

2. In international forums, Rio Tinto projects an image of leadership in sustainability, but in the Atacama Desert we can see how our biodiversity is under threat. How does Rio Tinto justify this double standard, and what direct and transparent mechanism will the company put in place to enable the Colla people to demand genuine redress for the socio-environmental damage inflicted on our territory?

3. With regard to Rio Tinto’s investments in Chile, and specifically the consortium currently being formed by CODELCO for lithium mining in the Maricunga Salt Flat, is Rio Tinto aware that the location of its project works is threatening one of the country’s most important sites for the nesting of flamingos, which are classified as ‘vulnerable’ by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature? What specific measures is Rio Tinto taking to ensure the protection of ecosystems housing protected species? 

Dominic Barton replied that the projects in question are at an early stage of development. They are being led by Codelco and ENAMI. There are ongoing studies to figure out what the development option should be. Rio Tinto is working there with Codelco and Enami and is very aware of the sensitive environments where these projects are proposed to be built, especially regarding water use, flamingos, impacts on the salar and also on the local communities. Through the many conversations that its team has had with community members and local stakeholders, Rio Tinto recognises that a lot of trust and expectations are being put on the company to develop these projects responsibly. He said that Rio Tinto was selected for being involved in this based on its technological and operational know-how, the work that it is doing on DLE (direct lithium extraction) and other ways of reducing water in the extraction of lithium. Rio Tinto is seen as a leader on that. “We are very committed to building again a strong respectful partnership there,” he said.

Jerome Pecresse, Chief Executive of Rio Tinto Aluminium and Lithium, added that Rio Tinto does not have lithium operations in Chile today and that the joint venture partnerships mentioned have not even been technically formed, so this is at the stage of studies. “We clearly are well aware of the considerations you brought forward,” he said. The company is investigating how, if the projects go ahead, the impact on the environment can be minimised. At the company’s lithium projects in Argentina, using its latest technology, Rio Tinto has reduced by a factor of two the amount of process water used for lithium extraction and it continues to work to improve its lithium extraction technology from one project to the next and on the ability to reinject the brines as much as it can, as it knows this is a critical consideration for projects in Chile, which, he reiterated, as of today are purely at the stage of projects. 

Dominic Barton read out a written question, “How is diversity in the workforce a strength?” He said he sensed some scepticism in the question. Dominic Barton said, “I would say that we think that diversity of thinking is essential for good problem solving, and good problem solving is important for being able to generate results, which is in the shareholder interest, so having diverse thinking, and being open to other people’s ideas wherever they may come from, is actually important to the fundamentals of the business, so this is important for how we do our business, and that’s why it’s very strongly emphasised in our culture.” [But clearly diversity in general is not so strongly emphasised that the company feels the need to accept that, when Indigenous Peoples say ‘no’ to a mining project, the company should actually take that at face value, and withdraw.]

A shareholder from Western Australia asked about electric vehicles. He said he was glad to hear that Rio Tinto is addressing hydrogen for the future with the availability of green hydrogen from BP refinery sites in Western Australia in 2027, according to Premier Roger Cook. Will Rio Tinto be providing platinum, which is required to drive Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) which create no pollution, as distinct from Electric Vehicles (EVs) that are not zero pollution.

Secondly, he asked if the company had given consideration to geothermal green base power. He said that the largest in Australia is under construction in north Perth, intended for completion in June 2026.

Finally, he asked about the possible use of desalination technology designed and developed in Denmark. He said that osmotic power is in operation in Japan, driven by variation in the density of seawater brine generating green base power to drive a desalination plant.

Mark Davies, Chief Technical Officer, replied: “When we look for renewable power options we tend to look at all options, and actually we do use a little bit of geothermal power in the mix and in New Zealand today, but it is very much location dependent. It depends on having hot rocks at the right depth and so it’s just one of the options that we consider. In terms of the osmotic power, that’s pretty early stage. Once again I would say we tend to look at what is the best option.” He said that the company tries to buy what is readily available. In today’s markets, solar with batteries or wind with batteries actually work really well in a lot of Rio Tinto’s contexts, “so when we’re looking at new options, that tends to fit with where our assets are located, but we do try to keep an eye, we have a team that has been looking at all these new emerging options. We tend to buy in more when they’re commercially available rather than very early stage.”

Mia Pepper, of the Mineral Policy Institute in Australia, spoke about the Ranger uranium mine which has been one of the longest standing issues for Rio in Australia. The Ranger uranium mine sits within the Kakadu World Heritage listed National Park. Mia said she would like to acknowledge Rio Tinto’s commitment to finance the rehabilitation of that mine. She said it is both an important commitment and a legal requirement on which Rio Tinto would long be judged.

She also mentioned the company’s Jadar lithium project in Serbia. The community has long resisted the proposed lithium mine there because of its potential effects on water, nature and agriculture.

She then noted the company’s responses to questions about the mine at Robe River, the proposed mine at Oak Flat, the resistance to its proposed lithium projects in Chile and disputes with the community in Madagascar.

Given the history of the company’s operations in Bougainville and Ranger, where there was no consent a long time ago when those mines were formed, and given that a lot has changed, what is Rio Tinto’s view and position on how to treat concepts internationally on Free, Prior and Informed Consent, and how does the board respond to the long held community resistance because of concerns around water, environment and impacts to the local economy and industry? 

Dominic Barton replied that on the Ranger, a mine owned by subsidiary ERA, he wanted to make clear again that Rio Tinto acknowledges and respects the Mirrar People’s longstanding and intergenerational opposition to the development of Jabiluka. He went on, “We want to particularly call out the leadership of Yvonne Margarella, who I’ve had the chance to meet personally, a wonderful woman, and I can understand the stress she’s in. We are not and do not want to mine, we’ve made that very clear, and obviously the legal process is moving through, but it’s absolutely clear our view on how we feel on that.” On Jadar, he said, the operation is on care and maintenance. It is a terrific lithium asset but Rio Tinto is not focused on that but on Argentina, in particular Quebec and on other parts of the world.

“At Bougainville, it was not as though there was not permission: what happened was that there was a civil war, “we were running for the hills to get out, that’s why there’s no people that were there. I think it’s very important we have the facts on the table on this.” [As before, in his answer in section 33 above to Keren Adams’ question, one fact not mentioned was that pollution by the Panguna mine was one of the main triggers to the civil war.] With regard to getting consent, Rio Tinto wants to “work with communities before we are able to do anything at all.” That is why, at the Resolution Copper project at Oak Flat, “that’s been 22 years in that process. We didn’t ‘front, run, push, weigh the scales’. We were in the hands of the local tribes where we had many discussions of what was going on, and the legal system, and that’s something that we’re committed to, and I hope you will see that with some of the examples I’ve just mentioned where we don’t do things, so I hope that gives you a bit of a bit of a sense.” [He did not clarify what sort of a sense, or a sense of what, he was hoping that Mia and the rest of us would be given, but it had been a long meeting, and I assume he was beginning to feel tired.]

Yvonne Orengo, an individual shareholder working with civil society in Madagascar, said: “My name is Yvonne Orengo, I am an individual shareholder, working with civil society in Madagascar. Mr Barton, you have told me in the past that there are different interpretations to water data at QMM Madagascar – I agree – and in fact it is really hard to come to consensus on water analysis when Rio Tinto withholds important data. I speak here of the independent water studies by WRG and WSP you promised to your shareholders and civil society between 2022-2025 at your AGMs and in dialogue – the reports relate to fish deaths that followed two QMM tailings dam failures in 2022.

You have not honoured these promises – instead of full transparency, the QMM 2025 water report that you mentioned earlier shares selected summary findings – apparently from the first WSP water sampling. We have no way to interpret these findings – because neither the raw data, nor the actual external provider’s report (that clearly you now have) have been made available. This is not transparency – it’s another broken promise. The executives who made transparency commitments on these reports have left Rio Tinto with no successor appointed to address this accountability matter. 

Nevertheless, I am speaking to the board today, which has a duty to communities and shareholders to ensure this transparency. The board must be aware and should be concerned, as should investors, that this transparency is lacking – that QMM seems to choose what to share openly. It chooses its own baseline data – and from a contaminated period – never using the pre mining water data in its analysis. Its reports highlight positive results and Rio Tinto/QMM emphasise fiscal investments – as you have done today – while downplaying or distracting from the worrisome issues – such as high conductivity that exceeds Malagasy regulatory limits, that QMM has no long-term solution to managing the toxic waste sludge from the new treatment plant or will say exactly what’s in it (waste), that there is still a million cubic metres of untreated water released by QMM with no data to tell us of its impact, and that there is still nothing to explain the 2022 fish deaths – which was the whole purpose of the WRG and WSP studies!

This is not conducive to consensus. This is not transparency, however much you share other data. This is selective management – and selective is biased, it is not scientific. Malagasy people have been waiting for these and other answers (as you heard earlier) for a long time. 

I can testify that pages of unanswered technical questions about QMM water management wait for answers, but I ask the board today – simply:

1. Will you commit today, to release the WRG and WSP reports – as promised to shareholders – within 30 days? It’s a YES/ NO answer. If NO, what is the reason for continued withholding and lack of transparency on these studies/reports and who in Rio Tinto Senior Management is now accountable for decisions related to transparency, reporting and community accountability at QMM?

2. When can we expect full written/complete scientific explanations and answers to questions about the waste management at QMM’s new treatment plant – as previously and repeatedly requested – including the EIA, which is a prerequisite for changes to the project?

3. What is the status of the strategic review of QMM, including any potential sale of the operation, and how will the Board reconcile a possible change of ownership of QMM with these and other unmet transparency and reporting commitments to Malagasy communities?

Dominic Barton replied that, on water usage, Rio Tinto had released the reports. “I’m not aware of us hiding anything”. He said he did not wish to be provocative to Yvonne, but “I sometimes get the sense, because we’ve had many of these conversations, if the data doesn’t come out the way you like, that concerns you, and I’m just going to say let’s look at the data together.”

He said that Bold Baatar is the executive who’s in charge. He said that this had been made public because, as Yvonne had said, “this asset is something that we are wondering whether we’re the best owner of.” Rio Tinto still owns it, is still serving customers, is focused on having good relationships in community and with employees and so forth. Nothing has happened in terms of a sale or move, but the board does want to look at whether Rio Tinto is the best owner of that asset and its Borax asset, but there is full commitment, the company will continue to operate on all the investments, and the employee group in QMM is one of the most actually engaged groups in the entire Rio Tinto system.

Bold Baatar added that he had had the pleasure of meeting Yvonne in the past when he ran the Energy Minerals Product Group and was looking forward to engaging with her again. He thanked her for her challenge, as the company had done a lot of work since 2022 in improving and monitoring water quality. According to the World Health Organisation, the water downstream and upstream poses no radiation contamination as Yvonne had described and Rio Tinto had actually engaged, based on Yvonne’s recommendation, JBSNG, which is an Australian water company that sent these samples to Australia for an independent review in 2023 and 2024. They found no evidence of any water contamination based on the 2019 to 2022 period. Rio Tinto also monitors on an ongoing basis with two other companies called Environ and WSP, monitoring the water quality for other heavy metals, and are in compliance with twelve of them. But Yvonne was absolutely correct to point out that in one of them, alumina, there were breaches, and the company is looking to remediate. Over the last three years water treatment has improved up to 70% on the emergency release, so definitely a lot of progress has been made in the last four years, and Bold Baatar said he wanted to acknowledge that Yvonne had pointed those challenges out. He said that Rio Tinto is working on the matter, is not perfect yet, but is very keen to engage with Yvonne over what other information she was seeking. The company’s teams are absolutely working with the communities to make sure the water is monitored, as well as with the members of the communities to make sure that the mine is not contaminating the flora and fauna.

The last question was from Harry Ashman, representing global asset manager Rubico. He said he was asking this question on behalf of interested investors with about £2.5 trillion in assets under management. Many of them are members of the Nature Action 100 engagement initiative. He said: “We really appreciate the constructive and insightful engagement we’ve had with your environment team and we support their efforts. However, Rio Tinto’s water targets expired in 2023 and it’s quite clear that a new approach to issues like this hazardous waste – stakeholder engagement on nature is really sorely needed. However, the release of an updated nature strategy has been delayed several times. It’s clear, especially from questions today, that regulators and host communities see the environmental impacts of current and potential mine sites as a vital part of your licence to operate, and as the company seeks to grow transition minerals production in particular, demonstrating a robust approach to nature is key to enabling that growth. So the question is fairly simple: when can investors and stakeholders expect an updated nature strategy to be released, and can the board provide clarity on its level of scope and ambition please?”

Dominic Barton replied that the approach was outlined in the annual report for 2025. Rio Tinto has moved from group or centralised targets to site-based asset targets and will report against these annually and they will be on the website so people will not have to wait for the annual report to come out. This is much like the water report, which is online on every one of the company’s sites. It gives an update on usage and so forth. This move from one central target to the product groups is part of the strategy and new management approach that Simon Trott has been pushing, where Rio Tinto is putting resources more towards where the assets are versus having them in the centre, and the board thinks it will drive more durable long-term impact in these areas and deliver more on the nature side of things. The approach being taken is very much aligned with commitments outlined in the ICMM (International Council on Mining and Minerals) nature position statement, with which Rio Tinto agrees.