201 questions, 37%), and Environmental (170 questions, 34%), each covering between seven and eight criteria spanning topics such as due diligence, labour conditions, 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 Dimensio n Criterion Question type Checklist question Governan ce Supply chain traceab ility Operati onal Does the standard specify which Chain of Custody (CoC) models are allowed? Normat ive Does the standard establish a mandatory roadmap for progressive transition from weaker to stronger CoC models? Social ASM Operati onal Does the standard address artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM)? Normat ive Does the standard mandate binding conflict-resolution mechanisms between ASM and large-scale mining (LSM) operators? Environm ental Air emissi ons & noise Operati onal Does the standard require an air quality management plan when significant airrelated risks are identified? Normat ive 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2