1782 are represented at the operating level. At the parent level, publicly listed entities account for a somewhat larger share in several jurisdictions, indicating that some privately operated facilities are embedded within listed corporate groups. For LBMA- and RJC-recognized gold refiners, Figure 5 shows substantial cross-country variation in ownership configuration. In jurisdictions such as Japan and Switzerland, publicly listed firms constitute a significant proportion of assessed facilities at both operating and parent levels. In contrast, China exhibits a more heterogeneous structure, with privately held operating entities coexisting alongside listed and stateaffiliated parent companies. These ownership differences are relevant for effectiveness measurement because disclosure obligations and reporting capacity vary systematically by ownership type and jurisdiction. Facilities embedded within publicly listed corporate groups are more likely to generate standardized and externally accessible ESG-related data, whereas privately held or state-affiliated entities may have more limited disclosure. As a result, the informational visibility of performance outcomes is uneven across facilities. 3. DISCUSSIONS 3.1 Implications for Effectiveness Measurement Taken together, Figures 1–5 illustrate three structural characteristics of midstream mineral governance under RMI: concentration across specific metals and jurisdictions, overlapping recognition regimes, and heterogeneous ownership configurations. These features do not determine whether a VSS is effective. Rather, they shape the empirical conditions under which effectiveness can be examined. Structural concentration limits the extent to which findings can be generalized across metals and regions. Cross-recognition introduces institutional layering, which complicates the attribution of observed changes to any single standard. Ownership heterogeneity, in turn, produces uneven informational visibility, affecting the availability, comparability, and consistency of performance data across facilities and jurisdictions. The case therefore demonstrates that, even when participation and assessment records are publicly accessible, institutional and informational constraints significantly influence the feasibility of evaluating behavioral or performance change. The RMI case does not provide a direct test of effectiveness; instead, it clarifies the structural conditions that must be accounted for when applying the proposed threedimensional effectiveness framework.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2