The major problems with mining industry's new certification standard

A new international mining sector standard, compiled by some of the industry’s most powerful players, is the latest example of an industry initiative that fails to hold its members accountable for human rights and environmental harm. 

The standard has been developed by four mining industry groups to merge their existing principles and standards and certify companies for responsible mining practices. They are the Copper Mark, the International Council on Mining and Metals, the Mining Association of Canada, and the World Gold Council, and have jointly formed the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative (CMSI).

The EU — which is relying heavily on certification in its recent laws on mining and minerals — should be wary of the new standard, which has serious flaws. 

Companies often seek to obtain certification under voluntary standards as an indicator to customers, policymakers, and investors that they are acting ethically. To obtain certification, companies usually have to undergo an audit by a third party. Audits can sometimes provide useful information on a company’s conduct, and certification can help promote best business practice.

Unfortunately, though, certification all too often fails to prevent wrongdoing because the audits on which they base their decisions are flawed.

The Brazilian reality of 'voluntary standards'

Audits tend to be superficial and hastily conducted, providing few opportunities for in-depth investigations or confidential contact with those at risk. Companies pay for the audits themselves, which creates a conflict of interest for the auditors. In some cases, companies have pressed the auditors to gloss over or omit information about corporate misconduct. Auditors who want to be hired again may go along with such wishes from their clients. 

An example is the Brumadinho mine dam disaster in Brazil. On 25 January 2019, the waste dam of an iron mine owned by the Brazilian mining giant Vale burst, spilling several million cubic meters of toxic mine sludge into the environment and killing 272 people.

Just four months earlier, an auditing company using an industry standard had certified the dam’s safety.

An investigation by Brazilian lawmakers subsequently found that Vale had successfully pressured auditors to certify the dam despite obvious risks. 

Social audits and certification schemes have proliferated in recent decades. In the mining and minerals sector alone, there are at least 10 sector-specific standards for responsible business practices, with some standards significantly weaker and less transparent than others.

Because certification often misses problems and abuse, it can pose a real threat: legislation on mining and minerals in Europe, such as the Batteries Regulation and the Critical Raw Materials Act, relies on certification and auditing schemes to ensure compliance or to verify whether businesses merit government support.

While some guardrails have been set, there is also a risk that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will over-rely on certification and audits.

At a time in which we need policymakers and businesses to focus more on strong laws and less on weak certification, another weak certification standard is exactly the wrong move for human rights and the environment. 

Here are the problems.

First, the proposed standard relies on the same system of flawed audits to verify compliance.

Second, it is too vague to provide meaningful guidance to companies — in part because it was developed primarily by the mining industry with very limited participation from nongovernmental groups, communities, and workers. 

Finally, the standard undermines widely accepted international human rights standards already used in the sector. By stating that there are circumstances in which mining may move forward without the full agreement of Indigenous peoples living on that land, for example, and even calling this a “good practice”, the standard infringes on the rights of Indigenous peoples to their lands, territories and resources, to self-determination, and to free, prior, and informed consent. 

More generally, the due diligence process — steps to identify, address, prevent and remedy harmful human rights impacts in a company’s operation or supply chain — proposed by the standard does not align with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, guidelines by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, or the EU’s new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.  

Social auditing and sustainability certification is a form of corporate self-regulation that should no longer be considered sufficient.

More concretely, the proposed new mining standard risks becoming a greenwashing tool used by multinational mining companies. Membership of or adherence to such a standard should not be used as a proxy for or indicator of due diligence. 

Robust and detailed voluntary standards, unlike the one just proposed, can in some cases be used by companies to help them identify and assess human rights and environmental risks associated with mining operations.

However, governments in the EU and beyond should not allow companies to use third party audits and certification as a shield from scrutiny by consumers and regulators and thereby perpetuate systemic violations of human rights and environmental harm. 

Instead, governments should require, equip and provide adequate resources to public authorities to monitor and verify whether companies fulfil their human rights due diligence obligations. Otherwise, we can expect to see more lives lost in mining.