Integrated Annual Review 2012 Annual Financial Report 2012 Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Regional overview  

8.2 Second party: Assurance on reporting

This is the third year of collaboration between Gold Fields and Maplecroft on the Integrated Annual Review. Maplecroft recognises that it is not an independent party.

Maplecroft worked closely with relevant Gold Fields employees to collect, analyse and review information and data across all areas covered in the Integrated Annual Review 2012. This included site visits in Ghana, Peru and South Africa, as well as interviews with senior managers, discipline experts and other relevant Gold Fields employees across the operational, sustainability and financial disciplines and in all regions.

The validity of original data was not checked at source by Maplecroft; although we did numerous follow-up checks to ensure consistency and to understand trends and reasons for changes. We completed a rigorous peer review of all data and documentation within Maplecroft to ensure the accurate and comprehensive representation of original data. Any anomalies or gaps in data that could not be resolved by Maplecroft were referred back to relevant employees within Gold Fields for clarification and (where relevant) later audit by an independent third party organisation.

We also prepared drafts of all text and worked closely with discipline experts in the refinement of report content (including clarification, review and feedback) to ensure the information presented is fair, accurate and in line with the expectations of stakeholders.

All work completed by Maplecroft is informed by best practice initiatives and standards, including the King III Code, the International Integrated Reporting Committee, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3.1 Guidelines, the UN Global Compact, the ICMM’s 10 Principles and the AA 1000 assurance standard.

AA 1000 principles

We believe Gold Fields has achieved broad compliance with the AA 1000 principles of materiality, completeness and responsiveness.

1. Materiality

In line with the recommendations made in the King III Code around integrated reporting, this report discloses and explains an integrated and coherent framework for the analysis of Gold Fields strategy, risks, performance and sustainability. It is our view that this report directly and transparently addresses Gold Fields overall strategy (p1417, p3036, p3747), material risks (including its top 10 risks (p4951)), relevant and material stakeholder issues (p52, 5455).

2. Completeness

Our inspection of documents, as well as our engagement with and enquiry of discipline experts, did not identify any material shortfalls with respect to completeness of reporting. Indeed, Gold Fields has proactively sought to identify and report on potentially challenging and sensitive dilemmas, risks and responsibilities, including the following relevant and material issues:

  • Potential Silicosis litigation in South Africa (p137)
  • The internal investigation into circumstances around the South Deep Black Economic Empowerment deal (p69)
  • The impact of nationwide, illegal mine strikes on the Beatrix and KDC mines between September and November 2012 (p3839, p139)
  • The impact and consequences of the deadly fire at KDC’s Ya Rona shaft in June 2012 (p27, 86)

3. Responsiveness

It is our view that Gold Fields extensive stakeholder engagement activity has done much to inform the content and form of this report. This includes ongoing and enhanced emphasis on:

  • Integrated operational, sustainability and financial reporting
  • Risk identification, management and mitigation
  • Forward looking strategic analysis and planning as well as the identification of challenges and dilemmas
  • The understanding of concerns relevant and material to investors as stakeholders


  • Explicit risk/opportunity-based reporting: This should build on the existing shift towards strategic-level, risk-based reporting by moving even further towards reporting which is explicitly structured around the high-level risks and opportunities faced by the Company in the short and long term
  • Further clarification regarding the impact of shared value: An important step has already been made in looking beyond socio-economic development spending to examine the broader concept of shared value – the next step in this evolution is likely to be the measurement of the impact of this shared value
  • Evolution of stakeholder performance table: The inclusion of this table marks a significant step forward in Gold Fields integrated reporting – and there is significant further potential to enhance its structure and content to provide the most comprehensive and in-depth representation of the relationships between stakeholders, strategy, risk, performance and remuneration
  • Enhanced linkages between management actions and performance outcomes: In certain cases (for example, energy and water consumption), the relationship is not always clear between specific strategies and/or management actions on the one hand, and performance outcomes on the other. It is recommended that enhanced data collection mechanisms be put in place to provide greater insight into this interaction
  • Further clarity around targets: The report could be enhanced through the establishment of a broader range of clear, hard targets across the operational, financial and sustainability fields – to drive continuous improvement and provide a clear benchmark for the assessment of management performance
  • Human rights due diligence: There is scope for Gold Fields to deepen the analysis of its human rights performance to ensure ongoing alignment to best practice. This could include, for example, the development of systematic human rights due diligence systems to ensure ongoing fulfilment of the responsibility to respect human rights under the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework
  • Political risk management: Gold Fields should investigate the potential implementation of enhanced political risk management measures to ensure the proactive identification, management and communication of political risks
  • Addressing drivers behind ‘conflict gold’: Gold Fields should examine the potential benefits to be gained from targeting socio-economic development spending to address the root causes behind – and human rights consequences of – ‘conflict gold’
  • We believe this report represents a relevant and complete statement of the integrated performance of Gold Fields. In our view, the Gold Fields statement that it has applied the GRI G3.1 Guidelines at Level A+ is fairly stated.

Professor Alyson Warhurst
Dr Kevin Franklin
Gus Macfarlane

Maplecroft, United Kingdom

26 March 2013