Moral lessons unlearned: Rio Tinto’s new sacred site controversy

In 2020, Rio Tinto made sure that major media companies were aware of how it “deeply regret[ed] the events at Juukan Gorge and have unreservedly apologised to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people (PKKP)”, and about its promises to work “closely with the PKKP people”, and its commitment to “listening, learning and changing”.

Among other things, the company promised to increase the number of Indigenous people it hires, including for senior positions, and expressed its desire “to find a way to give a greater voice to traditional owners in the decision-making process in relation to mining on their land”.

Rio Tinto’s shareholders called for a review of agreements the company negotiated with traditional owners. Some shareholders called for a “clean-out” of top executives and other amends. The CEO and two senior executives from Rio Tinto resigned in disgrace, albeit with a $40 million golden parachute.

The company has made good on some of its promises. On 2 June, 2025, Rio Tinto entered into a co-management agreement with the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation, which administers the traditional lands and waters of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama people and the Pinikura people.

---

Read more: How Rio Tinto can compensate the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples for Juukan Gorge rock blast

---

The press release quotes the CEO of the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation, Grant Wilson, as saying he believes the agreement “will change the way mining is carried out, certainly in the Pilbara, and hopefully across Australia”.

Rio Tinto’s Chief Heritage Officer, Dr Jordan Ralph, is similarly quoted – and he would have the public believe that the era of mining companies destroying sacred land and spaces is over:

“In the past, mining companies would only start engaging meaningfully with traditional owners at the end of their study process, after they have spent lots of capital and have put all their eggs in one basket by making key decisions without traditional owner involvement.”

A call for equity interest

However, as I previously wrote in Lens at the time, I found its statements of apology to ring flat. I argued that Rio Tinto ought to have given the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation a significant equity interest in the company.

As I wrote then:

“An equity stake in the company is the best kind of atonement for corporate wrongdoing because it is best for the victims, best for innocent stakeholders, and best at deterring future wrongdoing. Nothing less than a significant share of ownership in the company itself would give the Puutu Kunti Kurrama people and Pinikura people adequate compensation for the massive loss they have suffered.

“Furthermore, an equity stake (whether awarded through a new issuance or from existing stock held by the company) allows for organic, meaningful change within the company that does not unduly impact other parties’ rights.”

I’ve recently been imagining an alternative history, one in which Rio Tinto had listened to me and awarded the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation a 15% share of outstanding voting stock in Rio Tinto Limited and Rio Tinto plc.

If that had happened, I believe it would have been unlikely that Rio Tinto would be, just five years later, launching a mining project set to blast another Indigenous community’s sacred site, making it impossible for them to practise their faith.

Unfortunately, a Rio Tinto project is doing just that.

Selling of sacred land proceeding

On 27 May, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case, Apache Stronghold v United States, appealing from a closely-decided en banc decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing the US government to move forward with a plan selling land sacred to the Western Apache people to Resolution Copper, a joint venture between Rio Tinto (55%) and BHP (45%).

Two justices dissented, describing the fundamental problem of the case as one of religious freedom – that the destruction of the site would prevent Apache people from being able to practise their religion:

“For centuries, Western Apaches have worshipped at Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat. They consider the site a sacred and direct corridor to the Creator. It is a place where tribal members conduct religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere. Recognising Oak Flat’s significance, the government has long protected both the land and the Apaches’ access to it.

“No more. Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground. To extract copper lying beneath the land, they plan to blast tunnels that will result in a crater perhaps 1000 feet deep and nearly two miles wide.” (Citations omitted.)

Moral insolvency as a deterrent

In articles with the Australian Journal of Corporate Law and the Griffith Law Review, I’ve argued for a new way of responding to corporate wrongdoing, replacing corporate criminal liability with a system I call corporate moral insolvency.

A system of corporate moral insolvency would make it possible for victims of corporate wrongdoing to be awarded significant equity positions in corporate malefactors – giving them power to influence the composition of the board of directors, and through them, management.

While, in those articles, I make the case for moral insolvency as a means of punishing corporations, Rio Tinto’s failure to carry lessons learned from Australia to the United States demonstrates how a moral insolvency process would work as a deterrent.

Apache people have been seeking to protect their sacred land at Oak Flat since copper was first discovered underneath it in 1995. Oak Flat has been part of the Tonto National Forest since 1905, after Apache people were forced off of their homelands in the mid-nineteenth century.

Just as with the Juukan Gorge, Rio Tinto is well aware that Oak Flat is sacred land, and it’s utilising every legal and political tool at its disposal to ensure it’ll be able to turn it into a crater.

Oak Flat has been the subject of amendments and bills presented to the US Congress – some to protect it, and some to sell and allow Resolution Copper to mine it. Decisions about Oak Flat are being made by corporations, politicians, and judges, not Apache people. I suspect that if the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation had ownership interests in Rio Tinto, enough to influence or determine a shareholder vote, that Resolution Copper would have found a way to mine for copper without destroying Oak Flat.

Claims difficult to reconcile

As it stands, Resolution Copper’s website contains a section titled “Cultural Heritage” that declares: “Resolution Copper is committed to preserving Native American cultural heritage while developing partnerships and bringing lasting benefits to the entire region.”

The Apache Stronghold case isn’t mentioned on the website, but it does make claims about having listened to “a broad group of stakeholders” and deciding to reduce its request for purchase from 3025 acres to 2422 acres. It even promises to maintain “public access to areas within Oak Flat after completion of the land exchange”.

These assertions are difficult to reconcile with the ongoing activism against Resolution Copper’s proposal to use a block-cave method of mining that would turn a high plateau into a massive crater, affect groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and completely prevent Western Apache people from practising their religion.

Rio Tinto’s co-management agreement with the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation may prevent Rio Tinto from destroying more sacred sites in the Pilbara, but its plan to destroy Oak Flat seriously undermines its claims about having learned any moral lessons.

If we want corporations to change their behaviour, we should be open to a process that changes their ownership.