1774 5. CONCLUSIONS AND INDUSTRY IMPLICATIONS The application of the dual-lens framework to IRMA demonstrates the analytical value of distinguishing between operational robustness and normative sustainability alignment. Across governance, social, and environmental dimensions, the analysis reveals a consistent pattern: strong institutional structuring of management systems, due diligence processes, and risk mitigation mechanisms, combined with more selective integration of explicit threshold-based commitments. Governance appears comparatively more differentiated, with selected areas, such as supply chain traceability, showing greater balance between operational requirements and normative coherence. The social dimension shows strong protection systems, but clear minimum outcome guarantees are not consistently defined. The environmental dimension shows the most pronounced asymmetry, characterised by structured environmental management but with limited integration of ecological constraints at the system level, particularly in the areas of climate and energy. For industry, these findings suggest that compliance-oriented sustainability frameworks can provide a robust institutional architecture without necessarily ensuring alignment with broader sustainability thresholds. Therefore, companies that rely on VSS must distinguish between operational compliance and substantive sustainability performance. The dual-perspective framework offers a structured tool to support this distinction and identify areas where deeper regulatory integration may be necessary. From a methodological point of view, the study illustrates how integrating operational requirements with regulatory sustainability paradigms allows for a more differentiated assessment of VSS. Future applications of the tool in other standards will enable comparisons to be made and indicators to be refined at the criteria level, further enhancing transparency and harmonization in mineral supply chains. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This article was supported by the MaDiTraCe project, which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program of the European Union [Grant number 101091502/Topic: HORIZONCL4-2022-RESILIENCE-01]. REFERENCES Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2008). The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and The Shadow of the State. Princeton University Press. Bartley, T. (2011). Certification as a mode of social regulation. In Handbook on the Politics of Regulation (S. 441–456). Edward Elgar. Bennett, E. A. (2016). Constructing Private Governance: The Rise and Evolution of Forest, Coffee, and Fisheries Certification. By Graeme Auld. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. 352p. $30.00. Perspectives on Politics, 14(2), 591–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592716000888 Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non– State Market–Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule–Making Authority. Governance, 15(4), 503– 529. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00199 Daly, H. E. (1997). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Beacon press.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2