Human Rights Program:
A Risk-Based Approach, Driven by People
Human rights risks that are realized affect real people. At Barrick, our approach is built around engagement, accountability and proactive risk management. Our host communities, employees and contractors are not just passive stakeholders. They are our partners in identifying and addressing risks before they materialize.
We assess human rights risks at both the country and operational levels, recognizing that different regions present different challenges. Country-level assessments help us determine the baseline risk environment, including legal protections, public security dynamics and governance strength.
Based on this analysis, we apply heightened due diligence in higher-risk environments. This includes more frequent reviews, stricter monitoring requirements for suppliers and enhanced oversight of on-the-ground operations. These efforts ensure that our mitigation strategies are proportionate to the level of risk present, especially where institutional protections may be weak or under strain.
Our human rights program prioritizes salient risks – those with the greatest potential to impact people. Through a structured assessment framework, we gather insights from:
- Direct engagement with communities and workers to understand concerns on the ground.
- Grievance mechanisms provide clear and accessible pathways for reporting issues.
- Hotline reports and whistleblower channels that ensure transparency and accountability.
- Internal and independent audits that validate and strengthen our risk management approach.
We also actively participate in global initiatives, including the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPs), to broaden our understanding of risks across the mining sector and help shape industry best practices.
How We Assess Risk
Each site’s risk level is determined by using a comprehensive set of factors that shape the human rights landscape:
- Rule of Law – A strong legal system is critical in turning human rights principles into reality. The state’s ability to protect human rights is closely tied to the strength and application of its legal framework.
- Institutional Strength of Public Security – Public security forces have a critical role to play in upholding the rule of law. Poor training, limited funding or weak governance can compromise their ability to protect human rights.
- Social Unrest and Conflict – Human rights violations often fuel societal unrest, which in turn can lead to further instability and conflict. We assess the levels of unrest, violence and civil disturbances in the regions where we operate on an ongoing basis.
- Corruption and Governance – Corruption and human rights violations are deeply connected. We use Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index as a key measure of a state's ability to enforce laws and meet human rights obligations.
- Public Security Presence on Site – The presence of public security forces at our sites can indicate heightened tensions or the need for additional oversight to ensure impartiality and compliance with human rights standards.
- History of Security-Related Human Rights Allegations – Any past allegations or incidents increases the likelihood of future risks. We ensure that lessons are learned, accountability is upheld and corrective measures are in place.
- Trespass and Security Interactions – Frequent trespassing incidents can escalate interactions between private security, public security and local communities, increasing human rights risks.
How We Assess Risk: Internal and Third-Party Reviews
Our program follows a structured, risk-based approach that classifies sites into three levels based on the aforementioned risk factors which culminates in a two-tiered approach to assessing human rights risks:
- Self-Assessments (Level 1 Sites) – Lower-risk sites undergo structured self-assessments to ensure compliance with key frameworks such as the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPSHR).
These 36-question assessments evaluate security practices, employee training and grievance mechanisms, and require ongoing self-assessments and monitoring.
- Heightened Due Diligence and Independent Human Rights Assessments (Level 2 and 3 Sites) – Higher-risk sites undergo external human rights assessments conducted by independent experts. These assessments align with leading frameworks, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), ICMM Standards and OECD Guidelines. Additional controls and mitigation measures are required for those identified risks.
By integrating both internal reviews and third- party assessments, we proactively identify risks, evaluate mitigation strategies and ensure continuous improvement across all operations.
As part of this process, we engage a diverse range of stakeholders, including employees, contractors, community representatives and civil society organizations. Select stakeholders are also interviewed upon request to provide additional perspectives, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of risks and impacts.
Independent Human Rights Assessments
Where heightened due diligence is required, we implement structured, independent Human Rights Assessments to evaluate performance, identify risks and drive continuous improvement at site level. These assessments are conducted on a two- to three-year cycle, with frequency determined by the site’s risk classification and potential human rights impacts.
This risk-based cadence allows us to intensify oversight in higher-risk environments, ensuring we are not only compliant with leading frameworks but actively identifying and addressing emerging issues before they escalate.
Each assessment is led by external human rights experts and includes extensive on- the-ground engagement. Stakeholders consulted include employees, contractors and their employees, community members, traditional leadership and government or administrative authorities. Importantly, stakeholder selection and engagement are
independently determined and often include unannounced, informal interviews to ensure authenticity and transparency.
Beyond identifying necessary controls and remediation, these assessments also generate forward-looking recommendations, ranging from improvements in training materials to refinements in evaluation criteria. This helps embed a culture of continuous learning and keeps human rights at the centre of how we operate.