217 Figure 4. Ownership Structure of ESG-Assessed RMI Facilities For ESG-assessed facilities, Figure 4 presents ownership distributions at both the operating entity and ultimate parent levels, disaggregated by country and metal. Both publicly listed and privately held firms 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 crosscountry 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 state-affiliated 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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2