1770 biodiversity, and climate resilience. Across the full instrument, 280 questions (57%) are operational and 215 (43%) are normative. For example, under the Water criterion, operational questions assess whether a standard requires water management planning and efficiency measures, while normative questions examine whether absolute extraction limits based on ecological flow thresholds are established. Similar dual-lens logic applies across all criteria. Table 1 provides an illustrative example of the tool structure, organizing information by dimension, criterion, question type, and checklist question. Table 1: Example table. Structure of the evaluation tool Dimension Criterion Question type Checklist question Governance Supply chain traceability Operational Does the standard specify which Chain of Custody (CoC) models are allowed? Normative Does the standard establish a mandatory roadmap for progressive transition from weaker to stronger CoC models? Social ASM Operational Does the standard address artisanal and smallscale mining (ASM)? Normative Does the standard mandate binding conflictresolution mechanisms between ASM and large-scale mining (LSM) operators? Environmental Air emissions & noise Operational Does the standard require an air quality management plan when significant air-related risks are identified? Normative Does the standard set absolute limits for toxic emissions (e.g., Hg, H2S) that cannot be exceeded under any circumstance? 3.2 Development and operationalization of the evaluation tool Following the development of the evaluation instrument, a protocol was established to ensure consistent and transparent use of the tool. Each question was assessed using a three-level categorical response structure. A requirement was considered “explicitly addressed” when clearly and directly stated within the standard. It was considered “implicitly addressed” when the requirement was collectively fulfilled through dispersed provisions across different sections. A response of “not addressed” was assigned when no evidence of alignment could be identified. The instrument was pilot-applied to the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), widely recognized as one of the leading mining sustainability standards. The evaluation relied exclusively on publicly available IRMA documentation. For each coded item, evaluators recorded supporting textual evidence, including page references and explanatory notes. This documentation process was designed to ensure traceability and facilitate independent verification of coding decisions. Through this coding procedure, the instrument allows identification of both procedural robustness and the presence or absence of sustainability boundary considerations within VSS. For structural interpretation at criterion level, categorical strength levels (Very High (>75%), High (60–75%), Moderate (40–60%), Low (20–40%), Very Low (<20%).) were assigned based on the relative proportion of explicit positive responses within each lens. Threshold ranges were defined consistently across operational and normative lenses to ensure comparability. 4. ANALYTICAL OUTCOMES OF THE DUAL-LENS FRAMEWORKS This section presents the analytical outcomes derived from applying the dual-lens framework to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2