1769 natural capital and non-substitutable ecological functions (Daly, 1997; Ekins et al., 2003). From this perspective, sustainability requires respecting ecological ceilings and safeguarding minimum social foundations. Frameworks such as Planetary Boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015) define biophysical thresholds within which human activity must remain. The Safe and Just Space model (Rockström et al., 2009) integrates ecological ceilings with social foundations, while the Decent Standard of Living framework links material provisioning to minimum social requirements compatible with ecological constraints (Rao & Min, 2018). These approaches shift the evaluative focus from impact management toward systemic alignment with limits and thresholds. Building on these literatures, this study adopts a dual-lens perspective to evaluate mining-related VSS. The first lens assesses operational alignment, defined as conformity with recognized governance and due diligence practices. The second lens evaluates normative alignment, defined as the integration of threshold-based principles consistent with strong sustainability, ecological limits, and minimum social guarantees. By combining these perspectives, the framework moves beyond asking whether a standard addresses specific topics. Instead, it distinguishes between compliance structures based on management and the incorporation of substantive sustainability limits. This conceptual distinction supports the methodological tool developed in the following section. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Conceptual design of the dual-lens frameworks The evaluation tool was developed through an integration process combining operational governance frameworks and normative sustainability paradigms. The objective was to develop a comprehensive set of criteria to assess both operational quality and sustainability ambition within VSS. The development process consisted of four sequential steps. First, internationally recognised operational frameworks were selected based on their relevance to mining governance, supply-chain due diligence, reporting, and certification practices. These included the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, the ISEAL Code of Good Practice, IFC Performance Standards, GRI Standards, EU principles for sustainable raw materials, and BGR sustainability criteria. From these frameworks, explicit provisions and implicit performance expectations applicable to VSS were systematically extracted. Second, normative sustainability frameworks were incorporated to introduce threshold-based and justice-oriented reference points. These included selected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Planetary Boundaries framework, the Decent Standard of Living concept, and the Safe and Just Space for Humanity model. Only dimensions directly relevant to mining activities and mineral supply chains were retained to ensure contextual applicability. Third, extracted requirements were disaggregated into structured criteria and sub-criteria. Each subcriterion was translated into an evaluative question designed to be answerable using publicly available standard documentation. Questions were formulated to avoid overlap and ambiguity. Finally, each question was categorized according to its analytical orientation. Items addressing managerial systems, procedural requirements, and reporting obligations were classified as operational questions, while those reflecting ecological limits and minimum social thresholds were classified as normative questions. The resulting tool comprises 495 questions distributed across three ESG dimensions: Governance (140 questions, 28%), Social (185 questions, 37%), and Environmental (170 questions, 34%), each covering between seven and eight criteria spanning topics such as due diligence, labour conditions,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2