# Navigating the Mining Industry Challenges: An
## Introduction to the CERA 4in1 Standards

Thania Nowaz, Paulina Fernandez, Lukas Foerster, Michael Tost, Daniel

Monfort, Samuel Olmos Betin, Frank Melcher

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Thania Nowaz, Paulina Fernandez, Lukas Foerster, Michael Tost, Daniel Monfort, et al. Navigating the Mining Industry Challenges: An Introduction to the CERA 4in1 Standards. BHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte, 2025, 170 (2), pp.108 - 115. 10.1007/s00501-025-01556-x. http://hal-05454611

HAL Id: hal-05454611

https://brgm.hal.science/hal-05454611v1

Submitted on 12 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Navigating the Mining Industry Challenges: An Introduction to the CERA 4in1 Standards

Thania Nowaz<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Paulina Fernandez<fnref n="3" />, Lukas Foerster<fnref n="1" />, Michael Tost<fnref n="3" />, Daniel Monfort Climent<fnref n="4" />, Samuel Olmos Betin<fnref n="1" />, and Frank Melcher<fnref n="5" />

Received January 15, 2025; accepted January 26, 2025; published online February 14, 2025

**Abstract:** The mining industry faces significant challenges, including sustainability, environmental impact, and compliance with evolving regulatory frameworks. These challenges are compounded by the global demand for responsible sourcing and traceability across complex supply chains. The CERA 4in1 standard emerges as an innovative certification framework, addressing these issues by integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria throughout the mining lifecycle, from exploration to final product delivery. This comprehensive system combines advanced technologies, such as material fingerprinting and blockchain-based traceability, to ensure transparency, compliance, and stakeholder trust. The modular design of the CERA 4in1 standard aligns with international regulations, providing a structured pathway for organizations to improve operations while meeting regulatory and market demands. This contribution outlines the structure and development of the CERA 4in1 system, emphasizing its potential to foster sustainability, operational transparency, and robust certification processes across the mining sector. The anticipated completion of this standard by 2025 represents a critical milestone in advancing responsible practices and enhancing global supply chain integrity.

**Keywords:** CERA 4in1 standard, Sustainability, Supply chain traceability, ESG criteria, Responsible sourcing

## Navigation durch die Herausforderungen der Bergbauindustrie: Eine Einführung in die CERA 4in1 Standards

**Zusammenfassung:** Die Bergbauindustrie steht vor erheblichen Herausforderungen, darunter Nachhaltigkeit, Umweltbelastungen und die Einhaltung sich weiterentwickelnder regulatorischer Rahmenbedingungen. Diese Herausforderungen werden durch die globale Nachfrage nach verantwortungsvoller Beschaffung und Rückverfolgbarkeit entlang komplexer Lieferketten zusätzlich verschärft. Der CERA 4in1-Standard bietet ein innovatives Zertifizierungsrahmenwerk, das diese Probleme durch die Integration von Umwelt-, Sozial- und Governance-Kriterien (ESG) über den gesamten Lebenszyklus des Bergbaus hinweg, von der Exploration bis zur Endproduktlieferung, umfasst. Dieses System kombiniert fortschrittliche Technologien wie Material-Fingerprinting und Blockchain-basierte Rückverfolgbarkeit, um Transparenz, Compliance und das Vertrauen der Interessengruppen zu gewährleisten. Das modulare Design des CERA 4in1-Standards ist mit internationalen Vorschriften abgestimmt und bietet Unternehmen einen strukturierten Weg zur Verbesserung ihrer Betriebsabläufe bei gleichzeitiger Erfüllung regulatorischer und marktseitiger Anforderungen. Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Struktur und Entwicklung des CERA 4in1-Systems und betont dessen Potenzial, Nachhaltigkeit, betriebliche Transparenz und robuste Zertifizierungsprozesse im Bergbausektor zu ferdern. Der voraussichtliche Abschluss dieses Standards bis 2025 stellt einen entscheidenden Meilenstein dar, um verantwortungsvolle Praktiken voranzutreiben und die globale Integrität von Lieferketten zu stärken.

<footnote n="1">¹DMT, Essen, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Chair of Mining Science, Mining Technology and Mining Economics, Montanuniversität Leoben, Leoben, Austria</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴BRGM, Orleans, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Chair of Geology and Mineral Resources, Montanuniversität Leoben, Leoben, Austria</footnote>

<footnote>P. Fernandez (✉)
Chair of Mining Science, Mining Technology and Mining Economics,
Montanuniversität Leoben,
Leoben, Austria
paulina.fernandez-munoz@unileoben.ac.at</footnote>
**Schlüsselwörter:** CERA 4in1-Standard, Nachhaltigkeit, Rückverfolgbarkeit in der Lieferkette, ESG-Kriterien, Verantwortungsvolle Beschaffung

# 1. Expectations in Industry Practise

The association of the mining industry with human rights violations, deterioration of the environmental aspects, and issues such as bribery and corruption, among others, have long prevailed as the accepted norm. Even with an increased focus on achieving a sustainable development, the adoption of strategies to alleviate ESG concerns has remained relatively limited by the industry actors [1]. Some argue that the inherent nature of the operations of the mining industry and its reliance on finite resources goes against the concept of sustainability itself [2, 3], and this perspective is increasingly regarded as outdated [4]. Several organizations are making strides to align themselves with the principles in the triple bottom line by balancing economic aspects with social and environmental responsibility [5].

For instance, the HYBRIT pilot plant in Sweden aims to reduce 90% of its emissions from steelmaking by using the hydrogen-reduced sponge [6] to show its commitment to environmental goals. Companies like Rio Tinto increased its female workforce by 32% in 2021 [7]. However, despite such approaches, challenges remain. The same article by [7] also highlights the lack of women in top positions in the mining industry. Similarly, the undertakings of a few companies to reduce their GHG emissions are overshadowed by the surge in demand for metals and minerals due to the green transition [8]. So, despite the industry slowly changing its perception and integrating the concept of sustainability and innovation into its business practices [4, 9, 10], a slow pace would also mean that their sustainability efforts will not be able to match the boom in demand for mineral resources, leading to severe social and environmental repercussions. These repercussions or impacts caused by the activities of the organization need to be quantified and reduced over time. Life cycle assessment (LCA) tools can provide a structured approach to assessing these impacts and help organizations make sustainable choices [11].

Apart from the requirement for organizations to demonstrate responsible practices in their operations, another issue governing the metals and minerals industry is ensuring the same throughout their supply chain. Organizations cannot operate in silos anymore, especially with the downstream manufacturers under the intense scrutiny of stakeholders such as consumers, NGOs, governments, and investors [12, 13]. They are held accountable due to the practices at the upstream level of the supply chain [14], which are mainly associated with detrimental social and environmental impacts [15].

With regulations such as the German Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains (LkSG), EU Conflict Minerals Regulations, and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), it has become mandatory to include the supply chain stakeholders in the due diligence process and take action against the human

rights and environment-related risks [16]. The evolving landscape of regulations, as represented in Fig. 1, shows that organizations, regardless of size, can no longer negate the importance of upstream activities in their supply chains.

Another equally important issue gaining momentum is to determine the origin of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRA) [17–20]. The profits generated from trading minerals in the CAHRA are often associated with funding military operations [21], causing conflicts [22]. They are also widely known to contribute to basic human rights violence [19]. In response to rising concerns regarding conflict minerals in electronic products and cars [23] and jewelry [24], which fuels these conflicts, regulations such as the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) in the United States and the 18, which is applicable mainly for the EU importers of tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold (3TG) have been established.

Recently, the EU Directive 2023/1542: Battery Regulation [25] also mentioned the requirement for organizations to determine the source of the raw materials used in the batteries placed on the market. Notably, both EU regulations mention implementing a chain of custody system or traceability system to enhance transparency, identify the upstream actors in the supply chain, and verify the origin of minerals [18, 25]. Tracking mechanisms, such as the chain of custody, can help follow the material as it is transferred from one supply chain actor to another to be effectively traced back to determine its source [26].

# 2. The Current Scenario and Need for Guidance

In light of the myriad of regulations placed on the industry to show responsible practices within the organization, ensuring that they are not complicit to the risks in their supply chain and identifying the provenance of the products or raw materials presents a complex challenge. This is apparent from the number of disputes filed against the mining industry related to human rights [27], violence, and protests in emerging economies tied to mining companies operating in developed countries in recent years [28]. Even the ecological landscape is adversely impacted, affecting the people, flora, and fauna due to mining activities [29].

From the perspective of environmental aspects, another notable concern is climate change, stated as the second highest impact category for batteries [25]. Ranking in the 7th position of the 10 identified risks governing the mining industry [30], climate change can have severe consequences on mining operations. Some of these include extreme weather conditions, lack of availability of natural resources like water, more energy consumption, etc. [31] all of which can hinder mining operations [32]. Businesses need to account for their emissions and their supply chain as well to mitigate the impacts, especially with the Battery Regulation requirements [25]. As already stated, LCA has emerged as a reliable approach in this context. However, it still has limitations [33], such as a lack of primary data, harmonization of a reporting format, and methodology, and others [34, 35].
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Representation of the landscape of responsible sourcing-related regulations</figcaption></figure>

Furthermore, identifying the source of minerals also presents challenges; for example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies to disclose if their product contains minerals originating from the conflict region [36]. According to the report published by 37 [37], since 2015 companies have not made any significant progress concerning the identification of the source of the minerals in their products.

## 2.1 Voluntary Standards

Organizations are resorting to adopting voluntary standards as it helps gain the confidence of the stakeholders by ensuring that the claims made by the organization are credible [38] and address sustainability-related challenges [39]. Voluntary standards in the mining industry emerged around the mid-1990s, and the number has increased exponentially since the 2000s [40]. These standards do not substitute international or national regulations but provide a framework for organizations that improve and maintain their ESG issues by enhancing governance and operational transparency [41]. They are based on international and soft law provisions in social and environmental do-

mains, providing tools that allow producers to directly comply with these obligations and forms of monitoring and enforcement via audit [42]. Currently, a total of 20 key standards have been identified [43] each targeting various objectives and addressing different stages of the supply chain to promote responsible practices. Among these, some are highlighted in Table 1. These standards have been developed by a diverse range of stakeholders, including financial institutions, mineral associations and institutes, private companies, multi-stakeholder collaborations, governments, and governmental entities, as well as organizations focused on sustainability reporting and alternative trade practices.

Voluntary standards have become established practices, aiding organizations in achieving their sustainability objectives, aligning with regulatory requirements, and demonstrating best practices. This is particularly beneficial in areas with weak or imbalanced resource governance [45]. Their continued compliance is verified through third-party auditing, facilitating stakeholder confidence [41].
<table><caption>TABLE 1
Overview of some of the standards demonstrating the differences and similarities as well as the upcoming standards and topics of interest. Adapted from [44]</caption><thead><tr><th>Scope of the standard</th><th>Aluminum Stewardship Initiative (ASI)</th><th>Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA)</th><th>Copper Mark</th><th>CERA 4in1</th><th>Responsible Jewelry Council (RJC)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Commodities coverage</td><td>Commodity specific (aluminum and bauxite and alumina)</td><td>All</td><td>Commodity specific (copper, and also addresses lead, zinc and their by-products)</td><td>All</td><td>Commodity specific (diamonds, gold, PGMs and silver)</td></tr><tr><td>Supply chain applicable scope for sustainability standards</td><td>Entire supply chain</td><td>Upstream</td><td>Upstream</td><td>Upstream (Upcoming downstream)</td><td>Entire supply chain</td></tr><tr><td>Minerals from conflict areas addressed</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Traceability and tracking components</td><td>Present</td><td>Present</td><td>Present</td><td>(Upcoming)</td><td>Present</td></tr><tr><td>Supply chain due diligence in the chain of custody standard</td><td>Present and requires alignment with OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from CAHRA</td><td>Add on to the Standard for Responsible Mining which consists of a chapter on mining and CAHRA</td><td>Supply chain due diligence of secondary material supply chain and outsourced contractors</td><td>(Planned to be included)</td><td>Present and requires alignment with OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from CAHRA</td></tr><tr><td>Use of tracking and tracing technology</td><td>Does not exclusively mention any technology</td><td>Standard developed to work with traceability technologies like blockchains, mineral ID scanning and testing</td><td>Not included but is monitoring the emerging tracking technologies</td><td>(Planned to include Digital Product Passport and Material Fingerprinting technology)</td><td>Does not exclusively mention any technology</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.2 Limitations of Voluntary Standards

A significant challenge for voluntary standards lies in the effort required to achieve harmonization. Consistency is essential to prevent companies from encountering confusion when selecting appropriate practices and certifications. Another major issue is the lack of inclusivity, as many standards do not cover the entire supply chain, fail to accommodate companies of varying sizes, or exclude certain types of minerals [46]. For instance, some standards focus on specific raw materials, such as the Aluminium Stewardship Council (ASI) and 3TG frameworks (London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), Conflict Free Smelter Program (CFSP)), while others, like the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), take a broader approach aimed at companies in general. However, this limited scope suggests that, while these standards provide a general framework for responsible sourcing and environmental management, they may fail to adequately address the specific challenges and requirements of different mineral sectors [44].

Concerning company size, questions remain as to whether medium-sized enterprises are genuinely included in these schemes or are largely excluded due to a lack of resources to participate, insufficient incentives, limited awareness, or a perceived lack of necessity to adopt sustainability practices [44].

To date, the real effectiveness of these voluntary standards remains under scrutiny. The limited number of certified companies reduces their reach and visibility, while tangible benefits remain unclear, thus limiting their positive impact. Furthermore, what impacts their credibility is despite these standards in place, minerals from conflict areas still pave their way into the supply chains of global brands [47], putting them in the spotlight and resulting in a loss of trust from the stakeholders. Instances of such practices commonly appear in the news, such as 'How conflict minerals make it into our phones' [48], 'Minerals: Electric vehicle companies failing on rights and environmental practices' [49], and others.

In response, an aspect that is fast gaining traction is the role of innovation in the mining sector to address some of the existing challenges that the standards face. Technology is helping organizations reduce the environmental impacts of operations with better energy, waste, and water management, improve their production process, and enhance the recovery of minerals [50, 51]. It also contributes to an effective and efficient chain of custody by allowing organizations to track the minerals as they move down the supply chain [52, 53], thereby preserving the provenance of the material [54]. Such technological solutions help to promote transparency, an important component when it comes to gaining the trust of stakeholders and empowering them [51].
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Representation of the CERA 4in1 Standards and its scope</figcaption></figure>

Several studies have highlighted the potential benefits of integrating technology [55] and also acknowledged the limitations to its adoption in the mining industry [50, 56]. More importantly, it has been pointed out by the [51] study that voluntary standards have failed to incorporate the requirements needed to address them. As observed in Table 1, not many standards have considered the technology aspect.

# 3. CERA4in1 Standards

## 3.1 Standard Structure and Development

The current demanding landscape of regulations and the challenges faced by the industry have provided impetus for the development of a system of standards. The CERA 4in1 standard development process was initiated as part of the framework of the EU-funded project by the EIT Raw Materials. It is currently continuing its development under the MaDiTraCe project, which is also funded by the EU. CERA 4in1 is a system of four standards, as represented in Fig. 2. It illustrates the scope of each of the four standards, which begins at the exploration and mine development phase and continues to the final products. The standard is by far the first certification scheme to address the entire supply chain, which covers the responsible operations of the facilities and the sourcing of raw materials right through to the final products. The scope of applicability extends to all minerals and all organizations, regardless of size.

The ESG criteria of the mine exploration and mine development phase are covered by the CERA 4in1 Readiness Standard (CRS). This is followed by the CERA 4in1 Performance Standard (CPS), which is divided into two standards. The CPS upstream covers the on-site responsible operations for facilities in the upstream area of the supply chain and vice versa for CPS downstream. The CERA

4in1 Chain of Custody Standard (CCS) certifies organizations that possess the appropriate management system to ensure responsible operations and sourcing, material handling in line with the chain of custody models, and capable of supporting claims associated with the products. Lastly, the CERA 4in1 Final Product Standard (CFS) enables consumer empowerment by establishing the criteria to label final consumer goods.

All the standards generally follow the same structure, Topics, Themes, and Key Aspects. Topics encompass the overarching concepts of responsible practices, which include ESG. This is followed by Themes, which are the tasks or organizational sections within a particular topic, and the Key Aspects consist of the contents within Themes that the organization should address to prevent or mitigate the risk. For example, labour conditions is a Theme under the Topic of Social Responsibility. The Key Aspects include non-discrimination, equal opportunity and diversity, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labour, forced labour, remuneration and career training, and working hours and conditions [57].

The standard requirements under each Key Aspect are broken down into four key components: Commitment, assessment, monitoring, and disclosure, or CAMD. Table 2 represents each of the four components:

The CAMD structure was designed by incorporating the main principles of risk management approaches such as the ISO 31000 and the bow-tie method. The main idea of the four components is to provide a structured way for incremental improvement for the organization, making it manageable as each requirement builds on the other.

<table><caption>TABLE 2
Overview of the CAMD structure</caption><tr><td>Commitment</td><td>The organization devises policies, sets objectives, designs strategies, and allocates the necessary resources to address the Key Aspect</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>The organization implements risk and opportunity management for the relevant Key Aspects</td></tr><tr><td>Monitoring</td><td>The organization must maintain a constant oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness of risk and opportunity management</td></tr><tr><td>Disclosure</td><td>The organization must report on the efficiency and effectiveness of risk and opportunity management and strive to constantly improve its performance by integrating stakeholder feedback</td></tr></table>
## 3.2 Distinguishing Features of the Standards

As mentioned earlier, many organizations still struggle to identify their upstream players or cannot determine the source of their products. Many studies have highlighted the contribution of technology to improve supply chain transparency and traceability. But then again, most of the standards do not include requirements addressing the use of technology [51]. This serves as a distinctive feature of the CERA 4in1 system.

First, the integration of requirements to address chemical technology solutions: Within the MaDiTraCe project, methods and tools are being designed to reliably identify intrinsic and artificial material characteristics along the entire supply chain using Material Fingerprinting (MFP) technology [54, 58]. This approach facilitates the detection of anomalies and the verification of material origin compliance, ensuring the traceability of mineral resources [46, 59]. These technologies can be applied in two principal ways: on-site, directly at critical processing points such as refining plants, using real-time analytical techniques, and off-site, through advanced methodologies for more detailed forensic analyses. MFP methods represent an investment in supply chains (sample acquisition protocols, laboratory means, definition of leverage points across the supply chain, etc.). The preparation for and the implementation of MFP procedures in a supply chain is a positive feature that CERA 4in1 is planning to include.

Second, the addition of the digital infrastructure requirements: The EU Directive 2023/1542: Battery Regulation [25] requires organizations to establish and maintain a digital record of the battery materials, components, and lifecycle using a Digital Product Passport (DPP) by 2027. Considering the regulatory requirement and the need for data to improve transparency, the development within the project considers data models and digital frameworks to ensure compatibility with the existing enterprise systems and seamless data exchange between the stakeholders. Furthermore, customized smart contracts are also being incorporated to automate controls at critical verification points along the supply chain. These contracts facilitate real-time auditing and can trigger alerts in cases of non-compliance.

Third, design of a harmonized LCA methodology within the context of the CERA 4in1 standard, with the objective to facilitate compliance with the EU Battery Regulation and Critical Raw Materials Act and enhance interoperability with other existing standards and guidelines. The goal is that CERA 4in1 have a methodological guidance for conducting life cycle assessments (LCAs) and its data collection. Although verified primary data (i.e., backed by measurements) leads to more accurate LCAs, data collection at a high level of detail requires a large amount of time and effort. The protocol streamlines the data collection process by building on management systems that a company may have already implemented, such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. This methodology aims to help the organization accurately calculate LCA for selected products that are aligned with regulatory and market expectations.

The establishment and integration of these solutions strengthen the alignment of the CERA 4in1 standard with emerging EU regulations while consolidating its capacity to trace and certify the complete supply chain operations from mineral exploration to final products.

## 4. Future Steps and Next Actions

As MaDiTraCe progresses, the CERA 4in1 standard continues to be further developed and refined. Among the CERA 4in1 Standard, the CERA 4in1 Performance Standard (CPS)—upstream is published and available on the market. The remaining standards, including the Readiness Standard (CRS), the Chain of Custody Standard (CCS), the CERA 4in1 Performance Standard (CPS)—downstream, and the Final Product Standard (CFS), will be completed and validated through pilot tests.

Regarding technological solutions, efforts will continue to refine MFP techniques and digital traceability to achieve higher technological readiness levels. This includes improving both in situ and ex-situ analytical methods to ensure robust and reliable tracking of critical raw materials throughout their supply chains.

Efforts will focus on the seamless integration of the traceability technologies developed by MaDiTraCe within the DPP framework [60]. This process encompasses the definition of data schemes, the implementation of decentralized credentialing systems based on blockchain, and the establishment of mechanisms for automated conformity verification through smart contracts.

A detailed roadmap will be developed to integrate digital and chemical traceability tools into the certification system, incorporating stakeholder feedback from workshops, webinars, and direct consultations. This will ensure that the methodologies are aligned with regulatory and industrial needs. Simultaneously, key supply chains, such as those for batteries, magnets, and photovoltaic materials, will be used as test cases in pilot demonstrations to validate the scalability and adaptability of MaDiTraCe solutions across various contexts. Additionally, targeted communication and training efforts will be implemented, including training modules, e-learning resources, and technical guides, to promote the adoption and effective use of the tools and standards of the project among industry players, regulatory bodies, and the general public.

The project is scheduled for completion in December 2025, by which time the CERA 4in1 standard system is expected to be fully developed, validated, and integrated into the DPP framework.

## 5. Conclusion

The development and implementation of the CERA 4in1 standard represents a significant milestone in the responsible certification and traceability of critical raw materials on a global scale. This integrated system encompasses the entire supply chain, from exploration to final products, promoting sustainable practices, transparency, and regulatory
compliance. By incorporating advanced technologies such as material fingerprinting and smart contracts, the standard not only facilitates adherence to emerging regulations such as the EU Digital Product Passports but also establishes a replicable model for certification and traceability within the mining industry.

The holistic and adaptable approach of the standard, which includes ESG criteria, effectively addresses the demands of regulatory frameworks and stakeholder expectations. Through methodologies such as the CAMD structure, organizations are provided with a structured and incremental tool to improve their operations continuously.

The MaDiTraCe project, with its innovative and collaborative approach, underscores the critical role of technology and international cooperation in establishing a more sustainable mining sector. The full implementation of the CERA 4in1 system, expected by 2025, will provide a robust foundation for responsible certification across the industry, fostering stakeholder trust and contributing to global sustainable development.

**Funding.** This article is based on MaDiTraCe project, which is funded by the European Union's Horizon Research and Innovation Program [Grant number 101091502/Topic: HORIZON-CL4-2022-RESILIENCE-01].

**Funding.** Open access funding provided by Montanuniversität Leoben.

**Open Access** Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen. Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.

## References

1. Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Shankar, K.M.: Evaluating the drivers of corporate social responsibility in the mining industry with multi-criteria approach: a multi-stakeholder perspective. J Clean Prod (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.065

2. Darvishdoost, T., Souri, M., Rezaeinejad, I.: Sustainable development in the mining industry. Oppor Challenges Iran's Min Sect 8, 7-16 (2022)

3. Vintró, C., Fortuny, J., Sanmiquel, L., Freijo, M., Edo, J.: Is corporate social responsibility possible in the mining sector? Evidence from Catalan companies. Resour Policy (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.10.003

4. Onifade, M., Zvarivadza, T., Adebisi, J.A., Said, K.O., Dayo-Olupona, O., Lawal, A.I., Khandelwal, M.: Advancing toward sustainability: the emergence of green mining technologies and practices. Green and Smart Mining Engineering (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsme.2024.05.005

5. Deloitte: Tracking the trends 2023. The indispensable role of mining and metals (2023). https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-shared/docs/industries/energy-resources-industrials/2024/tracking-the-trends-report-2023.pdf, Accessed 26 Dec 2024

6. SSAB: HYBRIT: SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall first in the world with hydrogen-reduced sponge iron, 2021 (2021). https://www.ssab.com/en/news/2021/06/hybrit-ssab-lkab-and-vattenfall-first-in-the-world-with-hydrogenreduced-sponge-iron, Accessed 26 Dec 2024

7. White & Case: Developing a diverse pipeline is crucial to the future of the mining industry (2023)

8. IGF: Decarbonization of the mining sector: Scoping study on the role of mining in nationally determined contributions (2024). https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2024-08/igf-decarbonization-mining-sector.pdf, Accessed 26 Dec 2024

9. Fältholm, Y., Norberg, C.: Gender diversity and innovation in mining—a corpus-based discourse analysis. Int J Gend Entrepreneursh. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-06-2017-0029

10. Famiyeh, S., Opoku, R., Kwarteng, A., Asante-Darko, D.: Driving forces of sustainability in the mining industry: evidence from a developing country. Resour. Policy (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101910

11. WRI & WBCSD: Green house gas protocol. Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard (2011). https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/standards/Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf, Accessed 7 Jan 2025

12. Bateman, A., Bonanni, L.: What supply chain transparency really means. Harv Bus Rev, (2019). https://hbr.org/2019/08/what-supply-chain-transparency-really-means

13. Hart, S.L.: A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manag Rev 20, 986-1014 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2307/258963

14. Seuring, S., Müller, M.: From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

15. Tachizawa, M.E., Yew Wong, C.: Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply chains: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag Int J (2014). https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2014-0070

16. BMZ: Responsible mineral supply chain. For a globally just and social-ecological (2024). https://www.bmz.de/resource/blob/205082/responsible-mineral-supply-chains.pdf, Accessed 27 Dec 2024

17. El Baz, J., Jebli, F., Akenroye, T., Anass, C.: Towards responsible conflict minerals supply chain management: a systematic literature review and a supply chain governance framework. IJLM (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2020-0140

18. EU Directive 2017/821: EU conflict minerals regulation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0821, Accessed 27 Dec 2024

19. Hofmann, H., Schleper, M.C., Blome, C.: Conflict minerals and supply chain due diligence: an exploratory study of multi-tier supply chains (2018)

20. U.S Department of State: Statement of Concern Related to Certain Minerals Supply Chains from Rwanda and Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo Contributing to the Ongoing Conflict (2024). https://www.state.gov/statement-of-concern-related-to-certain-minerals-supply-chains-from-rwanda-and-eastern-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-contributing-to-the-ongoing-conflict/, Accessed 27 Dec 2024

21. Dijkstra-Silva, S., Schaltegger, S.: Social assessment and management of conflict minerals: a systematic literature review. SAMPJ (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-02-2018-0029

22. Young, S.B.: Responsible sourcing of metals: certification approaches for conflict minerals and conflict-free metals. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0932-5

23. van den Brink, S., Kleijn, R., Tukker, A., Huisman, J.: Approaches to responsible sourcing in mineral supply chains. Resources conservation and recycling (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.040

24. Enough Project: Striking gold: how M23 and its allies are infiltrating Congo's Gold Trade (2013)

25. EU Directive 2023/1542: Battery Regulation (2023). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1542, Accessed 27 Dec 2024

26. Graf Farooki, M., Graf, A., Endl, A., Degreif, S.: The Political, Economic, and Social Drivers of Responsible Sourcing Standards. In: Graf Farooki, M., Graf, A., Degreif, S. (eds.) Advancing Responsible Sourcing in Mineral Value Chains: Environmental, Social, and Economic Sustainability, pp. 27-52. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2024)
27. Kirkpatrick, A.: Human rights and international mining disputes (2021). https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-mining-arbitrations/2nd-edition/article/human-rights-and-international-mining-disputes, Accessed 28 Dec 2024

28. Global Witness: Critical Minerals mines tied to 111 violent incidents and protests on average a year (2024). https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/natural-resource-governance/critical-mineral-mines-tied-111-violent-incidents-and-protests-average-year/, Accessed 28 Dec 2024

29. Gill, V.: Metal-mining pollution impacts 23 million people worldwide (2023). https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environmental-66880697, Accessed 28 Dec 2024

30. Mitchell, P.: Top 10 risks and opportunities for mining and metal companies in 2025 (2024). https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/energy-resources/risks-opportunities, Accessed 7 Jan 2025

31. Nelson, J., Schuchard, R.: Adapting to climate change: a guide for the minig industry. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Clima-
Adaptation_Issue_Brief_Mining.pdf, Accessed 27 Dec 2024

32. Bellois, G.: The impacts of climate change on the mining sector (2022). https://www.igfmining.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/mining-and-climate-change-WEB.pdf, Accessed 27 Dec 2024

33. Farjana, S.H., Huda, N., Parvez Mahmud, M.A., Saidur, R.: A review on the impact of mining and mineral processing industries through life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.264

34. Eltohamy, H., van Oers, L., Lindholm, J., Raugei, M., Lokesh, K., Baars, J., Husmann, J., Hill, N., Istrate, R., Jose, D., Tegstedt, F., Beylot, A., Menegazzi, P., Guinée, J., Steubing, B.: Review of current practices of life cycle assessment in electric mobility: a first step towards method harmonization. Sustainable Production and Consumption (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.10.026

35. Porzio, J., Scown, C.D.: Life-cycle assessment considerations for batteries and battery materials. Adv. Energy Mater. 11, 2100771 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202100771

36. SEC: Disclosing the use of conflict minerals (2012)

37. GAO: Conflict Minerals. 2022 Company Reports on Mineral Sources Were Similar to Those Filed in Prior Years (2023). https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106295.pdf, Accessed 28 Dec 2024

38. GIZ: Recommendations to improve local governance through min-
ing certifications (2022). https://minsus.net/en/Media-Publicaciones/
recommendations-to-improve-local-governance-through-mining-
certifications/, Accessed 28 Dec 2024

39. UN: Understanding voluntary sustainability standards. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threat analysis (2023). https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditctab2023d3_en.pdf, Accessed 28 Dec 2024

40. Schiavi, P., Solomon, F.: Voluntary initiatives in the Mining Industry: do they work? Greener Management International (2007). https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2006.sp.00004

41. IGF: Navigating global sustainability standards in the mining sector (2024). https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2024-11/global-sustainability-standards-mining.pdf, Accessed 29 Dec 2024

42. Partiti, E.: The place of voluntary standards in managing social and environmental risks in global value chains. Eur J Risk Regul (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2021.34

43. Kickler, K., Franken, G.: Sustainability schemes for mineral re-
sources: a comparative overview. Bundesanstalt für Geowis-
senschaften und Rohstoffe (2017)

44. Erdmann, M., Franken, G.: Sustainability standard systems for min-
eral resources: a comparative overview (2022). https://www.bgr.
bund.de/DE/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/Downloads/studie_sustainability_

standard_systems_2022.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=7, Accessed
27 Dec 2024

45. Mining, M., Development Project, S.: Breaking new ground: min-
ing, minerals, and sustainable development: the report of the
MMSD project vol. 1. Earthscan, (2002). ISBN 978-1-85383-907-8

46. Dietrich, V., Melcher, F.: Mineral raw material supply chain trans-
parency and traceability: does provenance matter in the supply
chain? Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00501-022-01274-8

47. Global Witness: The ITSCI laundromat. How a due diligence scheme appears to launder conflict minerals (2022)

48. Bringham, K.: How conflict minerals make it into our phones. CNBC, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/how-conflict-minerals-make-it-into-our-phones.html, Accessed 6 Jan 2025

49. CRI: Minerals: Electric Vehicle Companies Failing on Rights and Environmental Practices. Better Sourcing, Supply Chains Needed to Protect Indigenous and Local Communities. Climate Rights International, 2024. https://cri.org/electric-vehicle-companies-failing-on-rights-and-environmental-practices/, Accessed 6 Jan 2024

50. Ediriweera, A., Wiewiora, A.: Barriers and enablers of technology adoption in the mining industry. Resour. Policy (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102188

51. WEF: Voluntary responsible mining initiatives. A review (2016). https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Voluntary_Responsible_Mining_ Initiatives_2016.pdf, Accessed 28 Dec 2024

52. Montecchi, M., Plangger, K., Etter, M.: It's real, trust me! Establishing supply chain provenance using blockchain. Bus Horiz (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.01.008

53. Global, R.C.S.: Blockchain for traceability in minerals and metals supply chains: Opportunities and challenges (2017)

54. Melcher, F., Dietrich, V., Gäbler, H.-E.: Analytical Proof of Origin for Raw Materials. Minerals (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/min11050461

55. Flores-Castañeda, R., Olaya-Cotera, S., López-Porras, M., Tarmeño Juscamaita, E., Iparraguirre-Villanueva, O.: Technological advances and trends in the mining industry: a systematic review. Mineral Economics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-024-00455-w

56. Calvão, F., Archer, M.: Digital extraction: blockchain traceability in mineral supply chains. Polit Geogr (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102381

57. TÜV NORD: TÜV NORD CERA 4in1 Performance Standards (CPS) (2024). https://www.tuev-nord.de/fileadmin/Content/TUEV_NORD_DE/zertifizierung/Nachhaltigkeit/Brochure_Complete_Version_-_TUEV_NORD_CERA_4in1_Performance_Standard_CPS_.pdf, Accessed 7 Jan 2025

58. Desaulty, A.-M., Monfort Climent, D., Lefebvre, G., Cristiano-Tassi, A., Peralta, D., Perret, S., Urban, A., Guerrot, C.: Tracing the origin of lithium in Li-ion batteries using lithium isotopes. Nat Commun 13, 4172 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31850-y

59. Schütte, P., Melcher, F., Gäbler, H.-E., Sitnikova, M., Hublitz, M., Goldmann, S., Schink, W., Gawronski, T., Ndikumana, A., Nziza, L.: The Analytical Fingerprint (AFP)—Method and Application. Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover, Germany (2018). https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/CTC/Downloads/AFP_Manual.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6, Accessed 27 Dec 2024

60. Fernández Muñoz, P., Tost, M., Dietrich, V., Melcher, F., Kloppmann, W.: Integration von Technologien für mehr Transparenz in Lieferketten. Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-024-01448-6

**Publisher's Note.** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.