Company report
Summary Results
Gold Fields is one of the ten strongest performing companies for Community Wellbeing and Working Conditions. In contrast to many companies, Gold Fields’s best results in Community Wellbeing relate not to its policy commitment on human rights (as no evidence was found of measures to operationalise this commitment) but to its attention to three issues for which other companies show limited evidence of action. These are: (i) assessing the rights, needs and interests of Indigenous Peoples and developing strategies and plans to respect these; (ii) assessing the potential impacts of physical or economic displacement of project-affected people and developing plans to avoid, minimise and mitigate negative impacts; and (iii) systematically tracking and reviewing the quality of its relationships with affected communities.
In Working Conditions, Gold Fields’s strongest performances relate to occupational health and safety: the company has made a formal commitment to provide a safe and healthy working environment and shows evidence of systematic tracking of its performance on this issue.
Gold Fields’s overall results across all issues are limited by a lack of evidence of the company having adopted a lifecycle management approach to consider and address its social and environmental impacts throughout all phases of its operations. For example, no evidence was found of the company having systems for applying socio-economic and environmental criteria during investment decision-making or for integrating environmental and social issues into its decision-making on mergers and acquisitions.
The maximum value of 1.000 represents the aggregation of best scores achieved for all indicators in a given thematic area, taking into account all companies’ results. As the aggregate best score varies from one area to another, these charts cannot be used to compare company performances across different areas.
All company results are based on public domain data that have been sourced by RMI analysts or provided by companies. In the case of a few companies, very little information was available. It is important to note that a low score may only reflect a lack of relevant information in the company’s publicly available documentation.
Relative company performance
Commitment (11 indicators)
Action (41 indicators)
Effectiveness (21 indicators)
Indicator-by-indicator results
Economic Development
A.01 National and Regional Socio-Economic Development Planning
A.02 Procurement
A.03 Capacity Building
A.04 Enhancing the National Skills Base
Selected Mine sites results
Mine sites individually assessed but not included
in the overall company score
| Mine Site Name | Local Procurement (score /6.00) | Local Employment (score /6.00) | Community grievance mechanism (score /6.00) | Workers grievance mechanism (score /6.00) | Water quality and quantity (score /6.00) | Biodiversity management (score /6.00) | Mine site (score /6.00) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerro Corona | 2 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1.83 |
| Damang | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.83 |
| South Deep | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2.17 |
| Tarkwa | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1.17 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agnew | Lawlers, Waroonga, New Holland | Australia | 100 | Gold | Underground |
| Cerro Corona | Peru | 99.53 | Copper, Gold | Open-pit | |
| Damang | Ghana | 90 | Gold | Open-pit | |
| Darlot | Australia | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground | |
| Granny Smith | Goanna, Windich, Keringal, Sunrise, Wallaby, Yilgarn | Australia | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| South Deep | Uncle Harry | South Africa | 90 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| St Ives | Cave Rocks, Belleisle, Leviathan | Australia | 100 | Gold | Open-pit, Underground |
| Tarkwa | Abontiakoon | Ghana | 90 | Gold | Open-pit |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 09/02/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 12.07 |
| Public Investment Corporation Limited | 7.84 |
| Allan Gray Proprietary Limited | 7.02 |
| Van Eck Associates Corporation | 6.06 |
| Dimensional Fund Advisors, L.P. | 4.94 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 3.19 |
| Gold Fields Ltd. - Share Trust | 1.65 |
| APG Asset Management | 1.15 |
| Newton Investment Management Ltd. | 0.99 |
| TOBAM | 0.53 |
| Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) | 0.51 |
| Wellington Management Company, LLP | 0.46 |
| Prudential Portfolio Managers (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd | 0.46 |
| Ruffer LLP | 0.45 |
| California Public Employees' Retirement System | 0.43 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 31/12/2016 | Country |
|---|---|
| Abosso Goldfields Limited | Ghana |
| Agnew Gold Mining Company (Pty) Limited | Australia |
| Agnew Holding Company (Pty) Limited | Australia |
| Darlot Holding Company (Pty) Limited | Australia |
| Darlot Mining Company (Pty) Limited | Australia |
| GFI Joint Venture Holdings Proprietary Limited | South Africa |
| GFL Mining Services Limited | South Africa |
| Gold Fields Australasia (BVI) Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| Gold Fields Australia (Pty) Limited | Australia |
| Gold Fields Corona (BVI) Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| Gold Fields Ghana Holdings Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| Gold Fields Ghana Limited | Ghana |
| Gold Fields Group Services Proprietary Limited | South Africa |
| Gold Fields Holdings Company (BVI) Limited | British Virgin Islands |
| Gold Fields International Holdings BV | Netherlands |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Australia | British Virgin Islands | Ghana | Netherlands | Peru | South Africa |
Recent involvements in Investor/State investment disputes (since 2014)
Disclaimer
The findings, conclusions and interpretations within this 2018 Responsible Mining Index (RMI) report do not necessarily represent the views of funders, trustees, and employees of the Responsible Mining Foundation, and others who participated in consultations and as advisors to the report.
This report is intended to be for information purposes only and is not intended as promotional material in any respect. The report is not intended to provide accounting, legal, tax or investment advice or recommendations, neither is it intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. In order to fully understand the methodology of the 2018 Responsible Mining Index, the respective sections on the website should be consulted.
The RMI seeks evidence of companies’ policies and practices on economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) issues, but does not seek to measure the actual outcomes achieved on EESG issues. Results are based only on evidence sourced from the public domain or provided by companies as open data. Whilst this information is believed to be reliable, no guarantee can be given that it is accurate or complete, nor does it preclude the possibility that policies and practices may exist, but which the RMI has not been able to consider for purposes of assessment. In this respect, the results of the low-scoring companies do not necessarily reflect a lack of relevant policies and practices; as they may be due to a lack of public reporting by the companies, limitations in accessing information, and/or any difficulties in accessing the RMI company portal.
It should be noted that, prior to publication, all companies in the Index were invited to check the factual accuracy of the contextual data and evidence upon which the Index is based and to review company information in the RMI document library.
Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of translations, the English language version should be taken as the definitive version. The RMI reserves the right to publish corrigenda on its web page, and readers of the 2018 RMI report should consult the web page for corrections or clarifications https://www.responsibleminingindex.org.