199 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 supplychain 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 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2