Measuring Our Benefit Footprint

Our goal, in partnership with our communities and stakeholders, is to maximize our benefit footprint – that is, the positive contribution – arising from our presence in a local community.

Mining creates wealth in the communities where we operate. At a global level and by country, this is captured in our reporting of economic value generated, distributed and retained. Locally, Kinross sites track our “benefit footprint.”

Measuring the benefit footprint begins with a geographic breakdown of our spending – in terms of direct benefits, taxes, wages and supplier purchases including capital expenditures – at the local, regional, national and international levels. Understanding our benefit footprint at each of our sites better informs our strategies for community engagement, community investment and public-private partnerships, local procurement, and hiring policies, processes and local impacts.

For example, at Kettle River-Buckhorn, we worked with the local region on community planning and economic development efforts, implemented a community investment committee, and updated our economic development strategy to better align Kinross’ community investments with current and evolving needs.

On a consolidated basis, the benefit footprint for Kinross shows the importance of procurement and wages and benefits in generating value within host countries. Including payments to governments, wages, and procurement, money spent within host countries amounts to approximately 65% to 75% of the total revenue. This includes operations and capital investment in projects.

 

2011 BENEFIT FOOTPRINT
(percent)
BenefitFootprint.pngThe 2011 Kinross Benefit Footprint is based on the following: direct economic value generated includes income from financing activities and revenue from metal sales; spending includes both expensed and capitalized spending; host country spending is characterized as “local” within the appropriate “local” administrative unit (this varies by site but generally corresponds to municipality, county, or district); as “region” within the sub-national administrative unit (generally corresponding to state or provincial level); and as “outside region” for all other spending within the host country. These data do not include revenue from or spending by Crixás. Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.

2011 Procurement 1

Local / Regional 2 Domestic (outside local / regional area) 2 Total Host Country 2 Imported
Brazil 64% 24% 88% 12%
Chile 42% 57% 99% 1%
Ecuador 12% 88% 100% 0%
Ghana 0% 84% 84% 16%
Mauritania 0% 30% 30% 70%
Russia 24% 18% 42% 58%
United States 60% 38% 98% 2%
  1. Procurement includes total spending on goods and services including capital expenditures.
  2. In-country spending includes distributors registered within the host country.

Previous Page  <   >  Next Page