Kevin D’Souza is a globally recognised leader in sustainability and ESG within the mining sector, with over three decades of expertise spanning consultancy, senior executive, and board-level roles. His distinguished career includes operational experience in more than 50 countries, where he has driven transformative corporate strategies that balance profitability with sustainability. Kevin shares with Gold Network his perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing the mining industry as it strives to align global sustainability standards with local realities, navigate human rights concerns, and embrace innovative technologies to future-proof the sector.
What are the biggest hurdles mining companies face when transitioning to more sustainable practices, and how can they be overcome?
To be honest there are too many hurdles to count. Their magnitude is context-specific depending on the company, where it is domiciled and where it operates – and these hurdles will continue to overlap and multiply. Currently, polarization and misinformation are flourishing; de-globalization, resource nationalism, and protectionism are on the rise; local community voices have gained strength, and of course the rise of anti-ESG sentiment in the U.S. That said, despite jurisdictional differences, three existential crises continue to worsen and demand urgent attention: climate change, biodiversity loss, and inequality. Moving forward, however, the greatest hurdles for the mining industry will be developing and nurturing enduring societal trust, and crafting a new, authentic narrative—one that goes beyond terse, forgettable pledges.
After the ‘ESG Golden Age’ of 2020-2023, which saw a surge in interest and the rise of sustainability initiatives, implementation challenges, reporting burdens, crackdowns on greenwashing, and shifting public priorities have eroded the dominant narrative. By 2025, mining companies will be juggling competing demands from shareholders, governments, employees, local and Indigenous groups, and civil society while struggling to articulate a meaningful sustainability strategy and maintain their previous commitments. The industry desperately needs a more mature and honest narrative—one that acknowledges the real difficulties but still holds firm to the need for change. Sustainability must evolve from a movement fixated on inevitability, nebulous initiatives and onerous reporting requirements into one driven by pragmatic, site-based action and clear-eyed determination to make an impact.
Thankfully, we’re seeing some companies mature and move away from “defensive sustainability”—that is, focusing primarily on monitoring negative impacts and striving to do “less harm,” without creating meaningful social value or contributing to natural capital. However, given current geopolitics, the industry must avoid backsliding into piecemeal Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) investments or feel-good public relations checklists. This approach often emerged in the mining sector, where companies focused on maintaining relationships solely to secure permits, only to boast about how much had been “given” to the community, rather than engaging in honest discussions about local impacts and genuine stakeholder relationships. This form of patronage fostered dependency and indifference toward the benefits being provided, ultimately leading to resentment from local communities and an increased risk of social conflict. For some companies, it was more about attempting to fulfill an inferred obligation, hoping to do the right thing without actually doing it right. Others viewed it as a way to address environmental concerns through economic arguments—creating jobs and business opportunities, paying royalties and taxes, and funding social programs.
It would be remiss not to mention the growing demand for timelier and more detailed sustainability data. Internal sustainability professionals—passionate, engaged individuals committed to making a difference—are increasingly incentivized to focus on data collation and completing mundane questionnaires that somehow produce an ‘ESG score.’ Scarce resources are being poorly allocated to inconsequential data-chasing exercises or exhausting debates over the best way to slice and dice sustainability data, which ultimately doesn’t lead to better performance or outcomes on mine sites. While sustainability data and disclosure are not discretionary and are important, they only need to reach a certain level of detail. Ultimately, excessive number-crunching becomes a purely accounting exercise and has little to do with authentic sustainability performance, especially in the mining industry. For many miners, particularly juniors, there is an unavoidable trade-off between gathering sustainability data and taking meaningful action based on it.
Looking ahead sustainability will continue to evolve, regulatory pressures will mount, politics and business will continue to collide, stakeholder activism will remain robust, and the energy transition will be at the forefront. The dynamic business environment will create new challenges, but also opportunities. So despite all the noise and other distractions, in my view, the question isn’t whether sustainability will persist in the mining sector, but how it will adapt to this pivotal moment with renewed relevance and impact. At this critical juncture, with some companies publicly retreating from their sustainability commitments, a reset is needed—especially given the political backlash surrounding the simple three-letter ‘ESG’ acronym. For me, the path forward to help future-proof the industry requires resilience and fortitude—moving beyond both blind optimism and cynical retreat.
How do you approach aligning global sustainability standards with local operational challenges in emerging markets?
I won’t delve into the numerous performance and disclosure standards or weigh the pros and cons of each. True trust is earned when actions align with words across all these standards. Unfortunately, there’s often a disconnect between corporate rhetoric and on-the-ground reality—some call this the “say-do” gap. Companies often have well-crafted corporate sustainability policies that are poorly or inconsistently executed on mine sites. The truth is, operational wisdom for successful implementation is scarce.
Meanwhile, ever-growing reporting and assurance requirements are overwhelming companies, particularly those on mine sites. Regardless of the standard adopted in any country, the first step is moving beyond the generic claim that sustainability is always profitable and requires no sacrifices. Companies must present honest, transparent cases that address the necessary trade-offs in long-term investments, build local and site-based credibility, and set realistic expectations—especially in more complex socio-economic contexts.
Next, balancing ambition with practicality is essential. Corporate goals must align with realistic timelines, and transparent discussions about unique on-site challenges should be maintained. Humility in scope is crucial—yet often missing, especially when strategies are created by remote “armchair experts” or FIFO consultants who are fluent in the latest sustainability jargon. These consultants produce voluminous reports advocating for cookie-cutter strategies and regurgitate “good practices” without hands-on, lived implementation experience.
While many publicly available sustainability frameworks and toolkits can help companies of all sizes, companies must still do the hard work of identifying and understanding what pragmatic, appropriate “good practices” are and how to operationalize them through internal processes, operating standards, and procedures that integrate with broader company-wide risk management systems.
Another emerging challenge is that companies are often ill-advised and mistakenly try to “boil the ocean” as they move from aspiration to accountability. Typically, they were never asked by their sustainability advisors, “What is the itch you are trying to scratch?” Instead, they are sold boilerplate sustainability treatments based on a cursory materiality assessment and a superficial benchmarking exercise—usually wrapped in a dull report full of infographics and stock photos. Rather than attempting to address every sustainability issue just to keep up with peers or meet a generic reporting standard, companies should focus on areas where they can make meaningful environmental and social impacts. Remember, strategy is about making choices. Trying to tackle every social and environmental problem at once—particularly those that aren’t material to the business—benefits no one. Finally, companies must assess the true level of reporting required through proper stakeholder engagement, rather than being disproportionately swayed by “advisors.” Today, in-house sustainability departments are forced to invest immense time and energy in developing new systems and chasing data. Sustainability risks and impacts in mining tend to be an intricate tangle of interrelated, intangible positives and negatives. On a tactical level, these overwhelming reporting demands slow down and undermine real sustainability progress at the site level.
Can you share a defining moment in your career that solidified your passion for sustainability and sustainability in mining?
That’s a great question, but not an easy one to answer. I first ventured into sustainability in the mining industry over thirty years ago, during my first job as a graduate mining engineer—long before it became a widely recognized concept or trend. There hasn’t been a single defining moment; rather, it’s been a journey shaped by decades of experience across more than fifty countries. Along the way, I’ve made countless mistakes and kept learning, which has fueled and nurtured my passion. Of course, there have been many moments of doubt and uncertainty—this journey hasn’t always been easy, and it’s required constantly adjusting my sails to navigate the prevailing winds.
What innovative technologies or practices have you seen that are transforming sustainability efforts in mining?
As a disclaimer, I should mention that I’m not particularly tech-savvy. However, I am deeply intrigued by AI and its potential to assist with sustainability practices—from corporate governance and reporting requirements to promoting safer working conditions, improving site operations, optimizing performance to minimize waste and reduce energy consumption, and collating and monitoring real-time impacts. The advanced data management, analysis, and learning could provide a competitive edge, not only in meeting demands for increased transparency—especially regarding decarbonization, water stewardship, and biodiversity management—but also in genuinely improving practices and even revolutionizing governance in supply and mining value chains.
Despite these tangible benefits and the potential for future innovation, I remain cautious (I’m not a Luddite) about the risk of becoming so fixated on elaborate AI algorithms and predictive analytics that we overlook the importance of resilient, reciprocal human relationships with real stakeholders, especially local and Indigenous communities—relationships that allow us to genuinely learn from each other and define what ‘good’ looks like. Smart tech still needs human intelligence to ensure we mine responsibly.
Many sustainability-related issues are complex, abstract, and difficult to quantify, particularly social and governance aspects. More granular sustainability data, analysis, and disclosure alone won’t create the desired change for our industry or build societal trust; in fact, it could even become counterproductive. We must remember that sustainability data is not an end in itself—it is simply a tool to help us achieve sustainability objectives.
What are the most pressing human rights concerns for mining companies today, and how should they address them?
This is an excellent question, but the answer is complex. The unfortunate reality is that the mining sector’s legacy of human rights violations spans centuries, deeply rooted in colonialism, racism, land grabbing, forced evictions, the abuse of Indigenous groups, environmental and cultural degradation, and conflict minerals. Moreover, the sector has been marred by violence from security forces against local communities and workers.
Human rights cover a broad spectrum of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. However, many mining companies still limit their understanding of human rights to a narrow set of issues, such as modern slavery, collective bargaining, Indigenous rights, or alignment with the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPs). This oversimplification allows them to sidestep the broader, more urgent human rights concerns that a comprehensive approach would demand. In some instances, companies merely express commitments to the International Labour Organization’s declarations and OECD guidelines, raising doubts about the authenticity of their efforts—potentially engaging in greenwashing—rather than being transparent and thorough in their commitment to respecting and addressing human rights. Companies are at various stages of maturity in this regard, influenced by how human rights risks impact their operations. Some are just beginning to recognize the issue, while others, especially those based in the EU, are further along due to existing legislation.
The industry is only now starting to fully recognize the interconnectedness of human rights and how to address these issues properly. Mining activities inherently intersect with many human rights concerns, including environmental impacts, water rights, labor protections, fair wages, economic and social disruptions, security management, land acquisition and involuntary resettlement, Indigenous peoples’ rights (including FPIC), supply chain practices, modern slavery, diversity and inclusion, bribery and corruption, and cumulative impacts. Consequently, companies must adopt a systematic and comprehensive approach to identify, assess, and mitigate the full range of human rights risks.
Supporting the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is a crucial first step for companies. This should be followed by developing a robust policy commitment that upholds both ‘respect’ and ‘remedy’ across all human rights issues. The policy should clearly outline governance practices, ethical guardrails, oversight mechanisms, accountability structures, due diligence processes, performance tracking, training, and other actions the company has in place. The next step should involve conducting human rights due diligence (and regular audits) to assess the potential and actual impacts on rights holders, including human rights defenders and vulnerable groups. Importantly, companies must provide culturally appropriate and accessible grievance mechanisms and cooperate in remediation processes for any adverse human rights impacts they may have caused or contributed to.
