Clara Denina, Melanie Burton

(Reuters) – Rio Tinto Ltd (NYSE:) Ltd does not plan to follow the example of Shell and BHP in attempting to sabotage its dual listing. According to people who know its thinking, Rio Tinto considers it a unnecessary expense and would weaken shareholder advantages in Sydney and London.

Two sources close to the company said that Rio’s top executives regularly review its dual structure. They have been resisting any changes for many years. This is a trend unlikely to change under Jakob Stausholm as chief executive.

Stausholm, who defended the dual-listing structure as an effective, one-management-one-board structure, was just quoted last month to defend it. This was 26 years after he created the system in Australia and the UK.

Royal Dutch Shell has decided to abandon its dual structure this week and relocate its headquarters to London. This decision is a renewed emphasis on dual listings. These are often criticized as expensive and complicated.

The move was made by BHP Group, the largest miner in the world (NYSE:), in August to disintegrate its structure of 20 years. It also quit London’s listing and moved its headquarters to Sydney.

Rio from London would probably make a similar move and shift its primary listing back to the UK. It has the largest number of shareholders there, but most of Rio’s revenues come from Australia.

While it’s not unusual for companies to trade their shares on more than one exchange, a dual listing is an incorporation under two separate legal regimes that operate on the same business. It often serves to convince governments of cross-border mergers.

Analysts say that while the structure may have some tax benefits, it can also increase costs. It can complicate stock-based acquisitions or corporate restructurings.

Australian investors are likely to be wary of any Rio action to remove the dual-listing, regardless of pressure being placed on large companies.

Peter O’Connor, of Shaw and Partners in Sydney said that “any move would likely face major pushback by the Australian government and Australian shareholders.”

It would not be good for the government if control over raw materials moved offshore. This is especially true considering that the profits of Rio from the iron ore mining business in Western Australia accounted more than 80%.

Brenton Saunders from Pendal Group, Sydney, said that “unless you make a strong case why it is necessary, it is better to leave it alone.”

Rio had to show value to both shareholders for Australia to get listed. He also said that any country considered poor would have to pay.

Because of tax rebates on dividends in Australia, Australian stock tends to trade higher than London-listed stocks. According to Saunders, a collapsed structure will result in an exchange of value between Australian shareholders and London shareholders.

His words were, “That has already happened with BHP” and “It will probably happen with Rio,” he stated.

O’Connor stated that corporates will be under greater pressure to become more efficient, integrated, and innovative as investors in London press for change.

He said that “the probability of Rio collapsing and moving its dual-share structure to London is moving towards 100” after being at 50 years on the scale.