1768 VSS have emerged as key instruments of transnational private governance, seeking to regulate corporate behavior beyond state-based mechanisms (Bennett, 2016; Cashore, 2002). In the mining sector, standards such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI), and the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) aim to operationalize responsible sourcing through certification, due diligence requirements, and third-party auditing. These standards increasingly interact with public regulatory frameworks, including the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (OECD, 2018) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR), 2011), forming hybrid governance configurations in mineral supply chains. Despite their proliferation, systematic academic evaluation of mining-related VSS remains limited. Existing assessments often focus on transparency, governance structure, or coverage of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics (Erdmann & Franken, 2022; Marx et al., 2015), yet rarely examine the extent to which such standards align with broader sustainability paradigms grounded in ecological limits and minimum social foundations. In practice, many evaluations emphasize procedural robustness, such as the existence of policies, audits, or grievance mechanisms, without distinguishing between management-based compliance and alignment with system-level sustainability thresholds. This paper addresses this gap by developing and applying a dual-lens methodological tool designed to assess both operational alignment with international frameworks and normative ambition grounded in strong sustainability principles. By integrating operational best-practice frameworks with ecological and social threshold-based paradigms, the study seeks to provide a more differentiated and structured evaluation of mining VSS. The document is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the conceptual framework on which the dual perspective approach is based. Section 3 presents the methodological design and construction of the assessment tool. Section 4 presents the analytical results derived from its application to IRMA. Section 5 concludes with methodological reflections and implications for the sector. 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK VSS have become central instruments of contemporary transnational private governance (Abbott & Snidal, 2008; Cashore, 2002). Unlike traditional state-based regulation, these standards operate through market-based incentives, certification systems, and reputational mechanisms (Bennett, 2016). In mineral supply chains, VSS increasingly function as governance infrastructures designed to manage risk, demonstrate responsible sourcing, and respond to investor and societal scrutiny. Within the mining sector, standards frequently incorporate elements of due diligence, traceability, third-party auditing, and public disclosure, reflecting broader shifts toward supply-chain responsibility (OECD, 2018). Many align with internationally recognized governance frameworks such as the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (OECD, 2016), the ISEAL Code of Good Practice (ISEAL, 2026), the IFC Performance Standards (IFC, 2026), and GRI reporting standards (GRI, 2026). These frameworks establish procedural expectations related to risk identification, stakeholder engagement, impact mitigation, and transparency. However, studies on private governance raises enduring concerns regarding the depth and effectiveness of such instruments (Bartley, 2011; Marx, 2013). While standards may institutionalize robust management systems, certification procedures, and compliance mechanisms, this does not necessarily imply alignment with minimum social guarantees. In other words, operational robustness does not automatically equate to sustainability sufficiency. This distinction becomes clearer when viewed through the lens of sustainability theory. Weak sustainability assumes substitutability between natural and human-made capital, focusing on aggregate capital maintenance (Neumayer, 2010). In contrast, strong sustainability recognizes the existence of critical
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2