Absolute results remain low overall and Gold Fields’ results are largely dependent on the formal commitments it has made, including to prevent bribery and corruption and to ensure safe and healthy working conditions.

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 also shows one of the stronger systems for reviewing and auditing tailings storage facilities, including independent third-party reviews throughout all stages of the project.

Gold Fields shows evidence of improvement since the RMI Report 202, including for example a new Water Stewardship Policy that commits to ensuring gender-appropriate sanitation and hygiene facilities.

Gold Fields is associated with a leading practice on climate risk analysis, that mentions not only risks to its business but also to workers and local communities.

There are two thematic areas where Gold Fields’ results are below the average: Economic Development and Lifecycle Management. For example, Gold Fields shows little evidence of supporting STEM education or technical skills development in producing countries or of collaborating with sub-national governments on socio-economic development planning. In addition, Gold Fields shows little evidence of tracking and reviewing its performance on progressive rehabilitation.

Gold Fields ranks 11th among the 40 companies on its mine-site-level results, with an average score of only 12% in the mine-site assessment. None of the seven Gold Fields mines assessed show any relevant evidence on five issues covered in the mine-site assessment: air quality, water quality, women workers, living wage, and worker grievances. On two other issues, rehabilitation and post-closure and workplace deaths and injuries, only one mine site shows any relevant evidence.