Gold Fields
    Quick access
    Headquarters
    South Africa
    Stock Exchange Listings
    JSE: GFI - NYSE: GFI - SIX: GOLI
    Workforce
    Employees: 5,601 (31/12/2018)
    Contract workers: 12,010 (31/12/2018)
    Total: 17,611 (31/12/2018)
    Geographic Footprint
    Producing countries: 4
    Known tax jurisdictions: 5
    Revenues (in BUSD)
    Total Revenue: 2.578 (31/12/2018)
    Net Income: -0.345 (31/12/2018)
    State Ownership
    No State ownership
    2017 Fatalities
    Total worker fatalities: 3
    • Employees: 2
    • Contract workers: 1
    Others: 1
    2018 Fatalities
    Total worker fatalities: 1
    • Employees: Not reported
    • Contract workers: Not reported
    Others: 1
    Home countries, where the company is headquartered
    Producing countries, where the company has mining operations
    Mine sites selected for mine-site-level assessment

    Summary of Results


    Absolute results remain low overall and Gold Fields’ results are largely dependent on the formal commitments it has made, to prevent bribery and corruption, ensure safe and healthy working conditions, and to not mine or explore in World Heritage Sites and to respect other protected areas.

    Gold Fields ranks 15th among the 38 companies on its mine-site-level results, with an average score of only 15% in the mine-site assessment.

    In the company-wide assessment, Gold Fields shows one of the relatively stronger results on the issue of engagement with artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) communities, as the company has corporate guidelines that cover this issue.

    Gold Fields shows evidence of continuous improvement efforts since the RMI Report 2018, including for example a revised human rights policy that now makes reference to the company’s support for the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. Linked to this, Gold Fields improved its results on reviewing its performance on preventing human rights abuses related to its security management, thanks to evidence of a company-wide review and implementation of corrective actions on this.

    Gold Fields is associated with several leading practices, including its scorecard system to link senior management’s remuneration to ESG performance.

    However, Gold Fields’ results are below the average across the 38 companies in two thematic areas: Economic Development and Lifecycle Management, and the company’s overall results are limited by a lack of evidence of action on a number of issues. For example, Gold Fields shows no evidence of supporting procurement from national suppliers in producing countries or integrating ESG criteria into its investment decision-making processes. In addition, Gold Fields shows little evidence of tracking and reviewing its performance on progressive rehabilitation.

    Moreover, none of the five Gold Fields mines assessed show any relevant evidence on three issues covered in the mine-site assessment: community grievances, worker grievances, and air quality.

    Overall results

    Economic Development

    0.85 / 6.002020
    0.90 / 6.002018

    Business Conduct

    2.23 / 6.002020
    1.73 / 6.002018

    Lifecycle Management

    0.72 / 6.002020
    0.32 / 6.002018

    Community Wellbeing

    1.67 / 6.002020
    1.50 / 6.002018

    Working Conditions

    2.07 / 6.002020
    2.10 / 6.002018

    Environmental Responsibility

    2.55 / 6.002020
    1.76 / 6.002018

    Average Mine-Site Score

    15%2020
    2020
    0.85
    score / 6
    2018
    0.90
    score / 6

    Economic Development

    2020
    2.23
    score / 6
    2018
    1.73
    score / 6

    Business Conduct

    2020
    0.72
    score / 6
    2018
    0.32
    score / 6

    Lifecycle Management

    2020
    1.67
    score / 6
    2018
    1.50
    score / 6

    Community Wellbeing

    2020
    2.07
    score / 6
    2018
    2.10
    score / 6

    Working Conditions

    2020
    2.55
    score / 6
    2018
    1.76
    score / 6

    Environmental Responsibility

    2020
    15
    %

    Average Mine-Site Score

    Compare with 2018 results

    Results per measurement area

    Commitment

    (9 indicators)

    Action

    (42 indicators)

    Effectiveness

    (20 indicators)

    Results per indicator

    Economic Development

    Mine-site Results

    Mine sites selected for individual assessment (but not included in the overall company score)
    Cerro CoronaDamangGranny SmithSouth DeepTarkwa
    Local Employment
    (score /3)    		1.00.00.01.00.0
    Local Procurement
    (score /3)    		1.00.50.01.00.5
    Post-Closure Plans
    (score /3)    		0.50.00.00.00.0
    Community Grievances
    (score /3)    		0.00.00.01.00.0
    Worker Grievances
    (score /3)    		0.00.00.00.00.0
    Air Quality
    (score /3)    		0.00.00.00.00.0
    Water Quality
    (score /3)    		0.00.00.00.00.0
    Water Quantity
    (score /3)    		1.01.01.01.01.0
    Tailings Management
    (score /3)    		1.01.01.01.01.0
    Emergency Preparedness
    (score /3)    		1.51.01.01.51.0
    Mine-site Score
    (%)    		20.011.710.021.711.7

    Operational mine sites

    Mine Site NameAliasesCountryCompany's share (%)ProductsMining types
    AgnewLawlers, Waroonga, New HollandAustralia100GoldUnderground
    Cerro Corona-Peru99.53Copper, GoldOpen-pit
    Damang-Ghana90GoldOpen-pit
    Darlot-Australia100GoldOpen-pit, Underground
    Granny SmithGoanna, Windich, Keringal, Wallaby, YilgarnAustralia100GoldOpen-pit, Underground
    South DeepUncle HarrySouth Africa100GoldUnderground
    St IvesCave Rocks, Belleisle, LeviathanAustralia100GoldOpen-pit, Underground
    TarkwaAbontiakoonGhana90GoldOpen-pit

    Tailings (known)

    NameCountryStatusConstruction MethodImpact-based hazard category (company-reported)
    Agnew RedeemerAustraliaPartially active for rehabilitation onlyIn-pitLow
    Agnew SongvangAustraliaActiveIn-pitLow
    Agnew TSF 1AustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedUpstreamLow
    Agnew TSF 2AustraliaRe-miningUpstreamLow
    Asanko TSFGhanaActiveDownstreamClass A
    Cerro Corona TSFPeruActiveCentrelineExtreme
    Damang ETSFGhanaClosed & still rehabilitatingDownstream and mod. CentrelineSerious
    Damang FETSFGhanaActiveDownstreamModerate
    Damang STSFGhanaClosed & rehabilitatedDownstreamN/A
    Granny Smith Cell 1AustraliaInactive/Stand-byUpstreamHigh B
    Granny Smith Cell 2AustraliaRe-miningUpstreamHigh B
    Granny Smith Cell 3AustraliaActiveUpstreamHigh C
    Gruyere IWL TSFAustraliaUnder constructionDownstreamHigh C
    Lawlers CI TSFAustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedIn-pitLow
    Lawlers GEP TSFAustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedIn-pitN/A
    Lawlers HPI TSFAustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedIn-pitLow
    Lawlers LEP TSFAustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedIn-pitN/A
    Lawlers TSF 1AustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedDownstreamLow
    Lawlers TSF 2AustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedUpstreamLow
    Lawlers TSF 3AustraliaClosed & rehabilitatedUpstreamLow
    Lepanto TD5APhilippinesActiveDownstreamExtreme
    South Deep DoornpoortSouth AfricaActiveUpstreamHigh B
    South Deep South ShaftSouth AfricaInactive/Care and MaintenanceUpstreamHigh B
    South Deep Twin ShaftSouth AfricaRe-miningUpstreamHigh B
    St Ives LeviathanAustraliaActiveIn-pitLow
    St Ives North OrchinAustraliaInactive/Care and MaintenanceIn-pitLow
    St Ives TSF 1AustraliaRe-miningUpstreamLow
    St Ives TSF 2AustraliaInactive/Care and MaintenanceUpstreamLow
    St Ives TSF 3AustraliaInactive/Care and MaintenanceUpstreamLow
    St Ives TSF 4AustraliaInactive/Stand-byUpstreamLow
    Tarkwa TSF 1GhanaActiveUpstreamClass C
    Tarkwa TSF 2GhanaActiveUpstreamClass B
    Tarkwa TSF 3GhanaActiveUpstreamClass B
    Tarkwa TSF 5GhanaActiveDownstreamMedium

    Shareholders (known)

    As of: 31/12/2018Shares (%)
    Van Eck Associates Corporation13.16%
    State Street Bank And Trust8.12%
    Public Investment Corporation (SOC) Limited7.35%
    JPMorgan Chase Bank NA6.71%
    Dimensional Fund Advisors, L.P.5.77%
    Allan Gray Proprietary Limited5.70%
    BlackRock Investment Management - Index4.55%
    Donald Smith & Co., Inc.3.76%
    The Vanguard Group, Inc.3.48%
    The Bank of New York Mellon3.13%
    Ruffer LLP3.05%
    BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.2.14%
    TOBAM0.79%
    CPP Investment Board0.55%
    Wellington Management Company, LLP0.54%

    Beneficial Owners (known)

    As of: 31/12/2018Shares (%)
    Nick Holland0.19
    Paul Schmidt0.01
    Cheryl Carolus<0.01%
    Richard Menell<0.01%
    Naseem Chohan<0.01%
    Brett Mattison<0.01%
    Taryn Harmse<0.01%
    Alfred Baku<0.01%
    Avishkar Nagaser<0.01%
    Martin Preece<0.01%

    Subsidiaries (known)

    As of: 31/12/2018Country
    Abosso Goldfields Ltd6Ghana
    Adansi Gold Company LimitedNot Reported
    Agnew Gold Mining Company Pty LtdAustralia
    Asanko Gold Ghana LimitedNot Reported
    Asanko Gold Inc.Not Reported
    Beatrix Mines LtdSouth Africa
    Beatrix Mining Ventures LtdSouth Africa
    Bezant Resources PLCNot Reported
    Cardinal Resources LimitedNot Reported
    Cardinal Resources Limited (Options)Not Reported
    Clancy Exploration LimitedNot Reported
    Consolidated Woodjam Copper CorporationNot Reported
    Darlot Mining Company Pty LtdAustralia
    Driefontein Consolidated (Pty) LtdSouth Africa
    Far Southeast Gold Resources IncorporatedNot Reported

    Tax Jurisdictions (known)

    Australia

    British Virgin Islands

    Ghana

    Peru

    South Africa

    Investor / State Disputes
    (since 2014)

    No case

    Copyright notice

    All data and written content are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

    Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)

    The licensed material may not be used for commercial purposes, or in a discriminating, degrading or distorting way. When cited, attribute to: “Responsible Mining Foundation (RMF), RMI Report 2020.” Images, photographs, and video content depicted on RMF websites are excluded from this license, except where noted.

    Disclaimer

    The findings, conclusions and interpretations within this RMI Report 2020 do not necessarily represent the views of funders, trustees, and employees of the Responsible Mining Foundation (RMF), 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 RMI Report 2020, the respective sections on the website should be consulted.

    The RMI Report 2020 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 Report 2020 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 RMI were invited to check the factual accuracy of the contextual data and evidence upon which the RMI is based and to review company information in the RMI document library.

    Country borders or names on maps do not reflect an official position of the RMF or anyone involved in its governance, employees or in service providers. Maps used are for illustrative purposes and do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the RMF, concerning the legal status of any country or territory or concerning the delimitation of frontiers or boundaries. Where needed, approaches used by the UN to present borders were followed.

    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 2020 RMI report should consult the web page for corrections or clarifications https://www.responsibleminingindex.org.