Comparative Analysis of ESG Performance of Gold Mining Companies Using Commercial ESG Ratings and Sustainability Reports

Background: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance has become a key concern for investors, regulators, and communities in the gold mining industry. Companies now publish detailed sustainability reports claiming strong responsible practices, while independent rating agencies provide their own assessments. However, the degree to which corporate self-presentation matches external evaluations remains unclear, raising questions about transparency and possible overstatement of achievements. Aim: This study aimed to compare the ESG performance of five major gold mining companies as presented in their sustainability reports with the ratings given by leading commercial agencies (Sustainalytics, MSCI, S&P Global, and LSEG/Refinitiv. Methodology: A qualitative comparative case study design using only publicly available secondary data was employed. Five companies were purposively selected to represent diversity in geography and structure. Data were collected from the companies’ 2023–2024 sustainability reports, annual reports, mineral reserve statements, and public ESG rating profiles from Sustainalytics, MSCI, S&P Global, and LSEG/Refinitiv. Thematic content analysis combined with descriptive comparison was used to assess alignment or divergence between self-reported claims and external ratings. Results: The analysis revealed a general pattern in how gold mining companies’ self-presentations align with independent ESG ratings. Companies headquartered in developed markets with high regulatory transparency (typically North America) demonstrated strong overall alignment between their confident claims of ESG leadership and the top-tier ratings they received from major agencies. In contrast, companies based in emerging or geopolitically restricted jurisdictions showed larger gaps, where optimistic self-descriptions in sustainability reports were only partially supported, or sometimes contradicted by available external ratings. These wider divergences were primarily associated with lower levels of public disclosure, differences in national reporting requirements, geopolitical constraints affecting data verification, and a tendency to highlight selected favourable rankings while broader global assessments remained less positive. Conclusion: Credible ESG leadership exists in gold mining and is clearly visible when corporate claims are supported by independent ratings, as seen in North American firms. Larger gaps in emerging-market companies highlight the critical role of transparency and consistent global disclosure standards. Using only public data, the research offers a simple, replicable method for evaluating ESG credibility that can be applied by investors and analysts without premium tools.