146 | <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>social</strong> <strong>transparency</strong> <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Companies Act 2006Annex 7: Company AGMs in practice: <strong>the</strong> mining industry | 147(4) Any member may require a copy of any of <strong>the</strong> records on payment of such fee asmay be prescribed.The minutes of AGMs must be open to any member of <strong>the</strong> company toinspect in person at <strong>the</strong> company’s registered office (or o<strong>the</strong>r designatedplace). The company must also provide copies to any member that requests<strong>the</strong>m, at a prescribed fee.However, <strong>the</strong>re is no statutory requirement for companies (even quotedcompanies) to make <strong>the</strong> minutes of <strong>the</strong>ir meetings available via a website,or to <strong>the</strong> general public for inspection in person. This means that anyshareholder who does not attend <strong>the</strong> meeting will have limited access toinformation regarding <strong>the</strong> events <strong>and</strong> conduct of <strong>the</strong> meeting, particularlywhere shareholding is geographically remote. More broadly it means alack of <strong>transparency</strong> to <strong>the</strong> public in general.A.6.5.3 Media coverageAs already discussed in section 6.3.4 above, <strong>the</strong>re is no statutory right for<strong>the</strong> media to be given access to AGMs. It is entirely at <strong>the</strong> discretion of<strong>the</strong> individual company as to whe<strong>the</strong>r to grant access <strong>and</strong> provide such<strong>transparency</strong>. 355Annex 7:Company AGMs in practice: <strong>the</strong> miningindustryA.7.1 The emergence of practice: The RTZ 1982 148Annual General MeetingA.7.2 Examples of practice in <strong>the</strong> UK 148A.7.2.1A.7.2.2A.7.2.3A.7.2.4Rio Tinto plc / RTZAnglo American plcBHP Billiton plcVedanta Resources plcA.7.3 Examples of relevant practice outside of <strong>the</strong> UK 156A.7.3.1A.7.3.2Rio Tinto LtdBHP BillitonAnnex 6 outlined <strong>the</strong> rights of shareholders <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r key actors in relationto company Annual General Meetings (AGMs), including <strong>the</strong> right ofshareholders to appoint ‘proxies’ to attend <strong>the</strong> meeting in <strong>the</strong>ir place <strong>and</strong>exercise <strong>the</strong>ir rights, when <strong>the</strong>y cannot (or choose not to) attend. While<strong>the</strong>se relationships were traditionally intended to better facilitate shorttermwealth accumulation for <strong>the</strong> individual shareholders, 356 <strong>the</strong>y havebeen utilised in practice to allow access to meetings for (i) people whohave been affected by company activities, <strong>and</strong> (ii) individuals or groupsrepresenting <strong>the</strong> interests of those people, to explain to shareholders <strong>the</strong>impacts that <strong>the</strong>ir company are having on communities or local environments,<strong>and</strong> to question <strong>the</strong> directors about company policies relating to<strong>the</strong>se impacts. 357Many large mining companies routinely <strong>and</strong> without challenge allowaccess to <strong>the</strong>ir AGM to people who have been affected by company activitiesor <strong>the</strong>ir representatives, <strong>and</strong> allow engagement <strong>and</strong> discussion during<strong>the</strong> meeting relating to <strong>the</strong> company’s environmental or <strong>social</strong> impacts.This practice has a long history which is well documented. The practiceprovides an extremely important scrutinising function within <strong>the</strong> companyreporting cycle (as explained earlier in this review). Along wi<strong>the</strong>xternal audit, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> role played by <strong>the</strong> Financial Reporting Review
148 | <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>social</strong> <strong>transparency</strong> <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Companies Act 2006Annex 7: Company AGMs in practice: <strong>the</strong> mining industry | 149Panel (FRRP), it plays an essential complementary role in ensuring thatcompany management are providing appropriate <strong>transparency</strong> to shareholders,<strong>and</strong> exercising <strong>the</strong> discretion <strong>the</strong>y have in <strong>the</strong> reporting processin an appropriate manner.A.7.1The emergence of practice: The RTZ 1982 AnnualGeneral MeetingThe events of <strong>the</strong> 1982 RTZ 358 AGM in London have been cited as a keycatalyst for <strong>the</strong> increasing use of AGMs as an opportunity for people whohave been negatively affected by company activities (or <strong>the</strong>ir representatives)to air <strong>the</strong>ir grievances to shareholders, <strong>and</strong> for company <strong>social</strong> <strong>and</strong>environmental responsibility to be scrutinised.At that meeting, 359 after a stream of questions about <strong>the</strong> RTZ group’s uraniummining in Namibia, 360 two Aboriginal delegates (who were shareholders<strong>and</strong> had travelled from Australia to attend) 361 asked <strong>the</strong> chair, SirAnthony Tuke, a question relating to <strong>the</strong> way that company activities wereaffecting <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong> rights. At that point <strong>the</strong> chair, ignoring <strong>the</strong> question,abruptly announced <strong>the</strong> closure of <strong>the</strong> meeting.The delegates <strong>the</strong>n moved towards <strong>the</strong> platform, while <strong>the</strong> directors leftit. The delegates occupied <strong>the</strong> platform <strong>and</strong> held an open session on <strong>the</strong>company’s actions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir personal grievances for around 15 minutes,with considerable support from fellow protestors in <strong>the</strong> meeting. Subsequently,all protestors were ejected (in some cases physically) 362 by <strong>the</strong>police, in what was <strong>the</strong> first <strong>and</strong> only time that police are known to havethrown shareholders out of <strong>the</strong>ir own company meeting. The meeting, <strong>the</strong>chairman’s conduct, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> forced ejections received massive worldwidepublicity <strong>and</strong> widespread condemnation from commentators of manypolitical persuasions.At <strong>the</strong> next year’s AGM, <strong>the</strong> chair gave <strong>the</strong> floor to questions from aggrievedprotestors’ for nearly two hours.A.7.2Examples of practice in <strong>the</strong> UKSince <strong>the</strong> events of <strong>the</strong> 1982 RTZ AGM, this type of practice at companygeneral meetings has grown; a great number of mining company AGMshave been attended by individuals who have used <strong>the</strong>m as an opportunityto take <strong>the</strong> company directors to task over <strong>the</strong> operations <strong>and</strong> impacts of<strong>the</strong> company (or its subsidiaries or associates), <strong>and</strong> expose shareholdersto important information about <strong>the</strong> impacts that <strong>the</strong>ir investments werehaving.This Chapter will outline practice relating to <strong>the</strong> AGMs of <strong>the</strong> three UKgiants of <strong>the</strong> mining industry, as well as those of Vedanta Resources, 363which is of particular note due to its highly controversial operations <strong>and</strong>high public profile in relation to <strong>social</strong> <strong>and</strong> environmental impacts.The level of detail on company AGMs varies between companies, as <strong>transparency</strong>varies between companies (as we have seen in Annex 6, <strong>the</strong>y haveno obligation to publish detailed minutes of AGMs), <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore evidencerelies to a great extent on <strong>the</strong> accounts of third parties in attendance. 364For each company, a brief summary of key facts will be given, before outliningexamples of <strong>the</strong> activity that <strong>the</strong>ir AGMs have seen in recent years.A.7.2.1Rio Tinto Plc / RTZRio Tinto Plc (formerly The RTZ (Rio Tinto Zinc) Corporation) is one of <strong>the</strong>two parent holding companies of <strong>the</strong> Rio Tinto Group, making up its ‘duallisted’structure. It is headquartered in London <strong>and</strong> listed on <strong>the</strong> LondonStock Exchange, while its corresponding twin parent company has executiveoffices in Melbourne <strong>and</strong> is listed on <strong>the</strong> Australian Stock Exchange. 365The Group’s major products include aluminium, copper, diamonds, energyproducts, gold, industrial minerals <strong>and</strong> iron ore. Its operations ‘span <strong>the</strong>world’, 366 <strong>and</strong> as at 31 December 2007, had a market capitalisation of overUS$160 billion. 367- AGM 1995 – Two West Papuans attended <strong>and</strong> raised questions regardinga perceived lack of community consultation or recognition of violationof indigenous rights before RTZ’s deal with Freeport, drawinga connection between current mining, its fur<strong>the</strong>r expansion, severepollution of <strong>the</strong> local environment, military oppression <strong>and</strong> denial ofIndigenous rights. 368- AGM 1996 – Over 40 speakers were in attendance to question companyactivities relating to environmental or <strong>social</strong> impacts, around half ofwhom were indigenous people from all over <strong>the</strong> world, in London for<strong>the</strong> Mining <strong>and</strong> Indigenous Peoples Consultation. To name a few: an