206 Biodiversity & ecosystem Moderate Low Impact assessment structured; limited ecological limit setting Water Moderate Low Basin management present; weak ecological limit definition Energy use Low Very Low Technical energy measures; no structured transition pathway Material use Low Very Low Waste regulated; weak circularity integration Closure & land rehabilitation Very High Low Strong planning and financial safeguards; mitigation-focused Mine waste Moderate Very Low Technical hazard control; limited systemic ecological integration Air emissions & noise ModerateHigh Low Emission control structured; weak alignment with atmospheric limits 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 thresholdbased 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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2