# A conceptual framework for mineral supply chain traceability: Enabling conditions and core dimensions

Paulina Fernández, Michael Tost, Daniel Monfort-Climent, Thania Nowaz, Emilio Castillo

► To cite this version:

Paulina Fernández, Michael Tost, Daniel Monfort-Climent, Thania Nowaz, Emilio Castillo. A conceptual framework for mineral supply chain traceability: Enabling conditions and core dimensions. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2026, 26, pp.101858. 10.1016/j.exis.2026.101858. hal-05495447

HAL Id: hal-05495447

https://hal.science/hal-05495447v1

Submitted on 5 Feb 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_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Original article

# A conceptual framework for mineral supply chain traceability: Enabling conditions and core dimensions

Paulina Fernández<sup>a,∗</sup> ◆, Michael Tost<sup>a</sup>, Daniel Monfort Climent<sup>b</sup>, Thania Nowaz<sup>c</sup>, Emilio Castillo<sup>d</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

JEL Codes:

Q32

Q38

L15

Keywords:

Traceability

Mineral supply chain

Transparency

Governance

Due diligence

## ABSTRACT

Companies trading in mineral resources must monitor supply chains rigorously, as minerals may originate from conflict-affected areas and present risks like human rights abuses, environmental damage, and corruption. Beyond regulatory pressures mandating ethical sourcing and transparency, consumers, NGOs, employees, and investors increasingly demand robust due diligence and detailed information on material origin. A central element of these practices is traceability, which enables companies to verify that their sourcing aligns with corporate standards and sustainability goals. Despite progress, traceability initiatives remain fragmented, often addressing isolated issues rather than forming a unified framework. The complexity of mineral supply chains, involving numerous actors and diverse requirements, further complicates the implementation of traceability. This study proposes an integrated conceptual framework for mineral supply chain traceability, developed through an extensive review of academic literature, technical and regulatory documents, and refined through expert validation. The framework organises traceability into enabling conditions and core dimensions across five interdependent categories, consisting of a total of twenty factors: Governance and compliance, Supply chain management, Social and environmental impacts, Technology and analytics, and Performance and evaluation. It is emphasised that effective traceability is a systemic task that requires solid institutional structures, coordinated operational practices, meaningful social and environmental commitments, appropriate technological tools, and continuous evaluation mechanisms. Technologies such as blockchain or digital product passports only prove their effectiveness when integrated into favourable conditions. The proposed framework provides policymakers, industry actors and certification bodies with a coherent structure for designing, assessing and strengthening traceability across diverse mineral supply chains.

## 1. Introduction

Companies involved in the extraction, processing, and marketing of mineral resources operate within supply chains that frequently span multiple jurisdictions and governance environments. Some of these materials originate in regions affected by weak institutions, conflict, or instability, which can expose companies to a wide range of risks, including human rights abuses, support to armed groups, abuses by security contractors, bribery and fraud, money laundering, and non-payment of dues (OECD, 2019). Beyond social and governance risks, mining activities can also generate significant environmental pressures,

such as air pollution due to emissions and dust, acid mine drainage, and inadequate rehabilitation of mine sites (Rüttinger and Corder, 2020).

In response to these concerns, governments and international organisations have progressively strengthened the regulatory landscape governing the mineral supply chain. In recent years, the emphasis has been on improving the transparency of these global supply chains and encouraging the mining industry to conduct due diligence (Ooms, 2022). For example, in the European Union, the Conflict Minerals Regulation (European Union, 2017) requires companies to source minerals responsibly to avoid financing conflicts. Additionally, the Battery Regulation (European Union, 2023) addresses sustainability in the

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Chair of Mining Engineering and Mineral Economics, Montanuniversität Leoben, Leoben, Austria</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> BRGM, Orleans, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> DMT, Essen, Germany</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Department of Mining Engineering, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: paulina.fernandez-munoz@unileoben.ac.at (P. Fernández).</footnote>
battery lifecycle, enforcing the traceability of critical materials. Com-
plementing these efforts, the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due
Diligence (European Union, 2024) aims to integrate human rights and
environmental standards into corporate governance, promoting a
framework for responsible business conduct. In the United States, Sec-
tion 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act (U.S. Congress, 2010) mandates that
companies disclose their due diligence practices regarding sourcing
specific minerals. At the international level, initiatives such as those led
by the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic
Business (UN/CEFACT) play a crucial role. Through the development of
standards and recommendations, UN/CEFACT supports transparency,
traceability, and due diligence in global supply chains, offering tools and
guidelines to harmonise practices across borders (UNECE, 2024).

The growing global emphasis on ethical and sustainable practices has
also influenced consumer expectations. Consumers, now more aware of
the social and environmental implications of the products they pur-
chase, demand clearer information on the origin and processing of
materials (Australian Government, 2022; De Angelis et al., 2017). Ac-
cording to the PwC "Voice of the Consumer 2024" survey, consumers are
willing to pay an average of 9.7 % more for products produced or
sourced sustainably, even amid concerns about the cost of living and
inflation (PwC, 2024). Not only are consumers estimated to request
more and more information in the future, but also non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) (Cartier et al., 2018), the media (RCS Global,
2017), employees, and investors (Dietrich and Melcher, 2022). None-
theless, the potential for product differentiation of mineral commodities
based on sustainability performance is yet to be achieved within existing
frameworks (Recabarren et al., 2024).

Traceability has therefore emerged as a central element of due dili-
gence and responsible sourcing. Defined as the ability to trace the his-
tory, application and location of an item through the past and current
information generated (ISO, 2015). This process allows companies to
ensure they are not inadvertently sourcing materials associated with
social, environmental, or business practices that conflict with their
corporate codes (Potts et al., 2018). Traceability enhances transparency
and accountability in global supply chains (Schöneich et al., 2023). It
provides data that helps companies manage their supply chains while
allowing governments and civil society organisations to hold corpora-
tions accountable by offering detailed information on the environmental
and human rights impacts of corporate activities (Gustafsson et al.,
2023). Furthermore, traceability highlights the strengths and limitations
of global governance policies and capacities (Muirhead and Porter,
2019), revealing areas where international regulatory alignment and
policy development are either effective or insufficient.

In recent years, scientific literature has highlighted rapid progress in
the technological and methodological landscape supporting traceability
(Azevedo et al., 2023; Cartier et al., 2018; Jha et al., 2023; Mugurusi and
Ahishakiye, 2022; Onifade et al., 2024; Yousefi and Mohamadpour
Tosarkani, 2022), with developments such as blockchain, analytical
provenance testing, certification tools, and digital product passports
(Deberdt and Billon, 2021; Desaulty et al., 2022; Kapoor et al., 2022;
Melcher et al., 2021; Pochon et al., 2021; Young, 2018). However,
despite this technological progress, traceability initiatives in mineral
supply chains remain fragmented. Many solutions operate in isolation
and fail to act as components of a cohesive architecture.

In addition to these structural limitations, several practical and
operational challenges further hinder the effective implementation of
traceability in mineral supply chains. The complexity of global supply
chains presents challenges to traceability, including high costs (Potts
et al., 2018), resistance to change within organisations and technical
limitations. Paper-based systems remain comparatively more affordable,
as digital traceability solutions require significant investments in tech-
nical infrastructure, specialised software, data management capabilities,
and trained personnel (OECD and IEA, 2025). Organisational resistance
is often linked to concerns about data transparency, as stakeholders may
be reluctant to share sensitive information (Kros et al., 2019). Moreover,

supply chain traceability is not always prioritised by top management
(Schöneich et al., 2023). It is often pursued only in response to specific
supply chain challenges or regulatory requirements (Liao et al., 2020).
Technical limitations involve inadequate infrastructure, particularly in
undeveloped areas, and the need for standardised, precise, and elec-
tronic information exchange (FSA, 2002). This standardisation is crucial
for suppliers in diverse and often remote regions worldwide, where
language, skills, and access issues hinder the full utilisation of available
technology (United Nations Global Compact and BSR, 2014). In mineral
supply chains, aggregation points such as smelters and refineries pose
significant challenges to traceability, as materials from multiple origins
are combined and undergo significant transformations, making tracing
difficult (RCS Global, 2017).

Beyond these operational challenges, recent high-level framework
designed to guide traceability also exhibit important limitations. The
IEA/OECD joint guidance (OECD and IEA, 2025), provides a high-level
structure organised around four core pillars; however, it does not
articulate in detail how the different elements of a traceability frame-
work relate to one another. Moreover, these models tend to generalise
categories without addressing social dimensions in depth, including the
role of artisanal and small-scale miners.

Together, these limitations and the intrinsic complexity of mineral
supply chains illustrate that existing approaches fail to provide the in-
tegrated conceptual structure needed to understand and guide effective
traceability.

To address this gap, this study develops an integrated conceptual
framework for traceability in the mineral supply chain, synthesizing
evidence from academic literature, technical guidance, regulatory in-
struments, and expert input. The goal is to achieve a coherent archi-
tecture that reflects its interdependence and relevance to responsible
sourcing. The framework integrates both the conditions necessary for
traceability to function and the core dimensions that define how trace-
ability operates within mineral supply chains, recognizing the systemic
and interdependent nature of the sector.

The following research question guides the study:

* What are the key enabling conditions and core components needed to guide traceability throughout the mineral supply chain in the development of a traceability conceptual framework?

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature; Section 3 outlines the methodology employed in this study; Section 4 presents the enabling conditions and core components of the proposed conceptual framework; Section 5 discusses the main findings in relation to existing literature. Finally, Section 6 concludes with future research directions.

## 2. Traceability in supply chains

Traceability has gained prominence as a fundamental element of contemporary supply chain management and is increasingly required by governments worldwide to ensure product safety and consumer protection (Syed et al., 2022). Traceability is the capacity to determine where a particular product originates, where it has travelled, who has handled it, and what modifications it has undergone (OECD and IEA, 2025). Beyond serving as an identification tool, traceability fulfils several objectives such as (a) meeting customer demands, (b) proactive risk assessment, (c) promptness in addressing safety and quality issues, (d) documenting chain of custody and activity records, (e) addressing sustainability, (f) product integrity and brand protection, and (g) meeting regulatory compliance (Sharma et al., 2021). Moreover, it strengthens international collaboration between producers and consumers by providing reliable and transparent data (International Energy Agency, 2022).

The practical application of traceability and its need initially
emerged in the food industry (United Nations Global Compact and BSR,
2014), which is also considered one of the established processes of the traceability system across the supply chain (European Commission, 2015). Its necessity was also identified in other non-food industries, and expanded to include wood and textiles, for similar reasons, such as consumer safety (Kumar et al., 2017), to prevent complicity with environmental and social risks occurring in the supply chain, and to determine the origin of the products (Tzoulis and Andreopoulou, 2013; Warasthe, Marcus Brandenburg, 2018).

Historically, companies implemented traceability primarily through paper-based documentation, a method that, while inexpensive, proved slow, labour-intensive, and susceptible to human error (Syed et al., 2022). The progressive introduction of digital tools, such as barcodes, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) (Aung and Chang, 2014) marked a major shift in how information could be captured and transferred along supply chains. More recently, technologies such as blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT), and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have further reshaped traceability practices. These advancements have opened the door to further improvements in tracking products across the supply chain (Bogaardt et al., 2016). In the agri-food supply chain, RFID has been widely used for many years (Bourn, 2003), providing management information and safety data for agri-food products to producers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers (Tian, 2016). Meanwhile, blockchain is viewed as one of the most important technology trends influencing businesses (Behnke and Janssen, 2020).

Blockchain emerged originally in connection with the Bitcoin Protocol (Snyers and Houben, 2018), but its use has rapidly diversified and now extends well beyond the domain of digital currencies (Azevedo et al., 2023). In recent years, firms across multiple sectors have begun to integrate blockchain into their traceability systems (Berg and Myllymaa, 2021; Mugurusi and Ahishakiye, 2022), as the technology improves product data traceability (Mattila et al., 2016), offering specific benefits for each actor in the supply chain (Perboli et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the application of blockchain in this sector remains relatively immature, and no comprehensive implementation framework has yet been established (Kapoor et al., 2022).

Notable examples of blockchain implementation include the automotive supply chain, where the BMW Group uses blockchain to ensure the traceability of components and raw materials across multi-stage, international supply chains (BMW GROUP, 2020). The De Beers Group developed Tracr, a blockchain-based platform to improve visibility and trust among participants in the diamond supply chain (De Beers Group, 2022). Additionally, companies like Everledger (2024), Circulor (2024), TILKAL (2024) and MINESPIDER (2024) have explored blockchain for enhanced traceability of raw materials (Schleper et al., 2022).

While technological tools such as IoT devices, RFID tags, QR codes and blockchain platforms enhance data capture and transfer, they represent only the technical layer of traceability. To complement this, analytical fingerprinting methods provide an independent means of verifying provenance by using geochemical or mineralogical signatures (Desaulty et al., 2022; Melcher et al., 2021).

The effectiveness of these technologies depends on the underlying information model and the mechanisms through which verified data is passed along supply chain actors. In this context, chain-of-custody systems play also a critical role. ISO defines chain of custody as the process by which material-related information is transferred, monitored and controlled between actors as products move downstream (ISO, 2019). Establishing such systems enables organisations to communicate verified ESG information and provenance records, helping to meet increasing expectations for transparency among regulators, businesses and consumers (Cartier et al., 2018; Elf, 2025).

Overall, the literature demonstrates that traceability relies on a combination of information recording, technological tools, verification processes and certification systems. These elements illustrate how traceability is operationalised in practice and provide empirical grounding for analysing how traceability can be structured across

mineral supply chains, informing the framework developed in this study.

## 3. Methodology

Fig. 1 outlines the methodological procedure followed in this study. The overall objective was to develop a conceptual framework for mineral traceability that integrates the enabling conditions required for traceability to function in practice and the core components of a comprehensive traceability architecture. The process consisted of three sequential stages: an exhaustive literature review, the development of categories and factors, and expert validation of the resulting conceptual framework.

### 3.1. Literature review

A dual literature review was conducted on supply chain traceability to identify the enabling conditions and core components required for a conceptual framework for mineral traceability. This review included an examination of both academic literature and technical and regulatory documents. The literature review was carried out in the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases covering documents from 2010 onwards. The year 2010 was selected as the starting point because it marks a regulatory inflection in global mineral governance. That year, the United States passed Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act (U.S. Congress, 2010), the first regulation to create binding rules on due diligence with regard to a company's supply chain (Sarfaty, 2013). The review used the following terms: "Mineral supply chain traceability", "Mineral supply chain tracking", "Flow transparency in mineral supply chain", "Traceability technologies for the minerals supply chain", "Due diligence in the supply chain", "Transparency in mineral supply chain", "Blockchain in mineral traceability", "Radio-Frequency Identification in mineral supply chain", "Fingerprinting and mineral supply chain" and "Chain of custody system". To ensure comprehensive coverage, the abstracts and themes of the articles were carefully reviewed to confirm relevance to traceability, tracking, and due diligence within the mineral supply chain. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant documents, 110 articles were identified, of which 69 explicitly addressed minerals and metals.

Following this, technical and regulatory documents were reviewed to extract additional information for the framework. These documents included frameworks, which are defined as guidelines, recommendations, and principles that guide compliance with responsible sourcing expectations (Kickler et al., 2018); laws and international instruments related to the topic; initiatives, manuals and reports, which promote and guide sustainable practices in the supply chain; and standards, based on international and soft law provisions in social and environmental domains, providing tools that allow producers to directly comply with these obligations, as well as forms of monitoring and enforcement via audit (Partiti, 2022). These definitions were included to ensure terminological clarity during the document selection process, as the distinction between frameworks, standards, and other governance instruments is often ambiguous in the literature. In total, 106 documents across these categories were analysed.

The purpose of this stage was to identify both the contextual conditions that enable traceability to operate effectively and the core components that traceability must incorporate. This dual perspective guided the subsequent categorisation and structuring of the conceptual framework.

### 3.2. Development of categories and factors

The enabling conditions and core components extracted from the literature were analysed and clustered into broader thematic areas. First, all identified traceability elements were grouped based on their scope, purpose, and functional role. Then, iterative comparisons across documents allowed the consolidation of overlapping concepts and the
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Research methodology.</figcaption></figure>

harmonisation of terminology.

This process resulted in five general categories, covering a total of twenty factors distributed among them. These factors capture more granular requirements, such as regulatory alignment, data interoperability, stakeholder engagement, environmental and social safeguards, and performance monitoring.

These categories and factors were developed to reflect both the enabling conditions required for traceability to function effectively and the core dimensions that define the scope and functionality of a traceability. The approach considers the nature of mineral supply chains, recognising the interdependence of governance, operations, and ethics.

### 3.3. Expert validation

A validation process was conducted with nine experts selected for their extensive experience in key areas of mineral supply chain traceability. Their backgrounds covered advanced technological solutions (e.g., fingerprinting, digital tracking), due diligence and regulatory frameworks, analytical geochemical methods, supply chain certification systems, and social and environmental impact assessment.

The experts received the preliminary set of categories, factors, and definitions as well as the initial version of the overall framework structure. Feedback was gathered through individual online consultations, focusing on: the relevance of each factor; the clarity and completeness of the categories; potential redundancies; missing elements; the hierarchical structure and alignment with practical experience.

Comments were analysed qualitatively and used to refine the framework. This led to merging or reassigning certain factors, clarifying definitions, strengthening the justification for the hierarchical relationships between categories, and ensuring that the resulting framework was both conceptually rigorous and practically grounded.

The expert validation stage ensured that the framework reflects real-world traceability challenges and industry practices, and that no key dimension was overlooked during literature synthesis.

## 4. Results

### 4.1. Overview of the conceptual framework

The framework is organised into three hierarchical levels:

1. Level 1 Traceability goal: ensuring transparent, reliable and ethical tracking of minerals throughout the supply chain.

2. Level 2 Categories: five dimensions, which capture both the enabling conditions required for traceability to function in practice and the core dimensions that a comprehensive traceability framework must incorporate.

3. Level 3 Factors: specific elements that operationalise each category and describe the requirements necessary to achieve effective traceability.

This structure reflects the synthesis of evidence extracted from the literature and expert validation, resulting in an integrated architecture capable of supporting diverse mineral supply chains. Designed for broad applicability, the framework is not restricted to a specific mineral, supply chain configuration, or region. It offers a flexible basis for analysing traceability requirements across heterogeneous supply chains.

### 4.2. Categories and factors

To develop a framework for guiding traceability, it is essential to identify areas requiring immediate attention and resources. Based on the reviewed literature (Table A1), the information is structured into five major categories encompassing twenty factors that reflect the governance, technological, operational, socio-environmental, and evaluative dimensions necessary for transparent and ethical mineral supply chains.

#### 4.2.1. Category A: governance and compliance

This category ensures transparency in the minerals supply chain through performance and custody standards, certifications, verifications and frequent independent audits. Identifies and mitigates risks, documents responsibilities, and complies with international frameworks and regulatory requirements. Establishes corporate governance, data management and stakeholder engagement structures to promote ethical practices. Uses international reporting, performance disclosure and financial reporting guidelines to ensure accountability and transparency. Detailed factor definitions for this category are presented in Table 1.

#### 4.2.2. Category B: supply chain management

This category covers global traceability efforts across all actors in the supply chain, from extraction to the final consumer, including recycled materials. It identifies and validates smelting and refining facilities, to ensure product safety and quality. It manages chain integrity by
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Factors for Governance and compliance.</caption><thead><tr><th>ID</th><th>Factors</th><th>Definitions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A1</td><td>Integrity and compliance system</td><td>Ensures transparency and sustainability in the supply chain through performance and chain of custody standards, certifications, and verifications. Frequent independent audits ensure compliance with international standards. Adherence to multiple standards and effective grievance mechanisms address rights violations and legal non-conformities.</td></tr><tr><td>A2</td><td>Risk assessment</td><td>Ensures the identification and mitigation of risks through due diligence and compliance with international frameworks, such as the OECD guidelines. This process involves documenting responsibilities, mapping risks, and developing strategies to avoid human rights violations and environmental damage, ensuring the ethical sourcing of minerals.</td></tr><tr><td>A3</td><td>Regulatory framework</td><td>Ensures compliance with legislative regulations and promotes state involvement in promoting traceability and transparency. It includes adhering to frameworks like the Dodd-Frank Act and the EU conflict minerals regulation, aligning due diligence with local laws, and implementing sanctions for compliance.</td></tr><tr><td>A4</td><td>Governance mechanism and structures</td><td>Establishes structures and processes for regulatory compliance in traceability. This includes corporate governance mechanisms for supplier identification and verification, ensuring accountability and transparency in responsible sourcing, and data governance for structured information management.</td></tr><tr><td>A5</td><td>Stakeholder engagement</td><td>Involves the identification, participation and collaboration of all actors involved in the mineral supply chain to guarantee traceability and transparency.</td></tr><tr><td>A6</td><td>Reporting</td><td>Ensures transparency and accountability through international reporting guidelines, result disclosure, voluntary reporting, and financial reporting. These frameworks mandate detailed information on mineral sourcing and allow companies to show responsible sourcing practices.</td></tr></tbody></table>

preventing the commingling of certified, and non-certified minerals. Data management ensures the accuracy and integrity of information throughout the chain. Detailed factor definitions for this category are presented in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Factors for Supply chain management.</caption><thead><tr><th>ID</th><th>Factors</th><th>Definitions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>B1</td><td>Supply chain</td><td>Ensures global traceability by covering all supply chain actors from extraction to the final consumer, including recycled materials for a circular economy. It must identify and validate smelters and refiners, ensuring legitimacy and creating a list of responsible global facilities. Ensuring product safety and quality involves managing product segregation, and effective supply chain mapping is essential to manage complexity and track mineral origins.</td></tr><tr><td>B2</td><td>Supply chain integrity</td><td>Ensures segregation at the source, preventing the mixing of certified and non-certified minerals while maintaining confidentiality. Fraud prevention and mitigation measures protect customers and ensure product authenticity. Cost-sharing mechanisms should equitably distribute due diligence costs across the supply chain, addressing the disproportionate burden on upstream suppliers.</td></tr><tr><td>B3</td><td>Data management</td><td>Involves the collection, processing, maintenance, security, quality and access of data to ensure the accuracy and integrity of information in the supply chain.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 4.2.3. Category C: social and environmental impacts

This category supports artisanal miners with facilitation measures and local financing, empowering them and encouraging their participation in voluntary certification schemes. Engages local communities in traceability initiatives. Manages socio-environmental impacts by conducting social impact assessments, communicating environmental progress, and ensuring respect for human rights and labour practices. Tracks carbon emissions and resource footprints, continuously monitors environmental pollution. Detailed factor definitions for this category are presented in Table 3.

### 4.2.4. Category D: technology and analytics

This category uses analytical methods and advanced technologies such as blockchain, RFID and digital passports to improve traceability and authenticity of minerals. Implements fingerprinting, data collection guidelines, statistical evaluation and reference databases. Blockchain records changes to product data, ensuring performance, scalability and interoperability. Smart contracts automate transactions, and data privacy and security are guaranteed. Detailed factor definitions for this category are presented in Table 4.

### 4.2.5. Category E: performance and evaluation

This category implements a comprehensive monitoring system with continuous surveillance to ensure compliance with standards and address emerging issues. Conducts periodic evaluations, efficiency tests, and surveys to establish acceptable practices. Uses systematic methods to evaluate stakeholders and suppliers, promoting ethical practices. Establishes key performance indicators (KPIs) to ensure continuous improvement, adapting to diverse and evolving materials, processes and legal landscapes. Detailed factor definitions for this category are presented in Table 5.

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Factors for Social and environmental impacts.</caption><thead><tr><th>ID</th><th>Factors</th><th>Definitions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C1</td><td>Artisanal miners</td><td>Supports artisanal miners through local facilitation, financing and formalising practices, providing technical assistance and encouraging licensing and loans. It is crucial to mitigate any negative impacts that traceability efforts might have on their livelihoods, empower them with tools and information, and encourage participation in voluntary certification schemes such as Fairmined and Fairtrade.</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>Community involvement</td><td>Empower smallholder farmers to ensure that mining activities do not negatively impact agricultural communities. Actively includes local communities in traceability initiatives, engages them as key stakeholders, and promotes local economic value creation. Enhance communication by using clear and understandable technical language.</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>Social responsibility</td><td>Manages social impacts by incorporating assessments and a holistic approach. Ensures labour practices and human rights are respected. Communicate social impacts, establish community monitoring networks, provide inclusive training systems, engage with workers directly, and integrate women into the value chain, specifically supporting women miners.</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>Environmental sustainability</td><td>Manages environmental impacts by understanding supply chain effects on ecosystems and implementing sustainable practices. Communicate progress, emphasise ESG considerations, and report carbon emissions. Trace carbon emissions from extraction to product, track resource footprints using LCA methodology, and continuously monitor environmental pollution. Address risks and opportunities related to sustainability and climate change.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 4**
Factors for Technology and analytics.</caption><thead><tr><td>ID</td><td>Factors</td><td>Definitions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>D1</td><td>Analytical Proof of Origin (APO)</td><td>Uses analytical methods such as geochemistry, mineralogy, and spectroscopy to identify the origin of minerals, verifying unknown samples against reference materials. It includes guidelines for data collection and sample handling, statistical data analysis, and the creation of a reference database. Artificial fingerprinting adds unique tracers to shipments to improve traceability.</td></tr><tr><td>D2</td><td>Blockchain technology</td><td>Implements blockchain to record product data changes and maintain traceability, ensuring performance and scalability for increased transaction volume and node count. Combines IoT and AI to improve operations, uses smart contracts to automate transactions, and verifies data with Merkle trees and proof of work, ensuring privacy and security through encryption and efficient data storage.</td></tr><tr><td>D3</td><td>Certification technologies</td><td>Employs various technologies to ensure the traceability and authenticity of minerals. Tagging and Bagging use barcodes, QR codes, and wireless sensor networks to record origin and extraction information. RFID identifies and tracks objects in the supply chain using tags that remain throughout the lifecycle of the material.</td></tr><tr><td>D4</td><td>Digital product passport</td><td>A digital tool that contains comprehensive information about a product, including its origin, components, manufacturing processes and traceability throughout the supply chain. This passport facilitates transparency, accountability and sustainability by providing accessible and verifiable product lifecycle data.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 5**
Factors for Performance and evaluation.</caption><thead><tr><td>ID</td><td>Factors</td><td>Definitions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>E1</td><td>Monitoring</td><td>Involves continuous supply chain surveillance to ensure compliance with standards and promptly address emerging issues. It includes regular evaluations, efficiency tests, and periodic surveys to establish acceptable practices. Regulatory compliance monitoring ensures adequate documentation and oversight of mineral flows at the regional and international levels.</td></tr><tr><td>E2</td><td>Evaluation and improvement</td><td>Includes periodic assessments and feedback to suggest best practices. Systematic methods ensure transparency in bidding and public consultations, promoting ethical practices. Key performance indicators measure transparency and efficiency. Continuous improvement follows the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle, ensuring continuous progress through evaluations and audits.</td></tr><tr><td>E3</td><td>Adaptation and innovation</td><td>Refer to the traceability system being flexible, adjusting to diverse and evolving materials, processes and legal landscapes. This includes adapting traceability methods, incorporating new technologies, considering progressive standards requirements and maintaining a forward-looking strategy for supply chain integrity and sustainability.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 4.3. Integration of categories

Fig. 2 presents the hierarchical organisation of the mineral traceability conceptual framework. At the foundation of the framework lies “A: Governance and compliance”, which establishes the institutional and regulatory conditions that define responsibilities, oversight and data integrity. These elements create the enabling environment within which all other categories can operate effectively.

Building on this foundation, “B: Supply chain management” structures the operational flow of materials and information. By coordinating

actors and ensuring chain-of-custody integrity, this category translates governance requirements into practical procedures across the extraction, processing, transport and downstream stages.

“C: Social and environmental impacts” adds the socio-environmental dimension that underpins responsible sourcing. Its integration within the framework ensures that traceability is not limited to material flows but also addresses community engagement, labour conditions, human rights and environmental protection, reinforcing the legitimacy of traceability efforts.

“D: Technology and analytics” acts as an enabling layer that supports and enhances the implementation of governance, operational and socio-environmental practices. Technologies such as analytical proof of origin, blockchain, certification tools and digital product passports improve the accuracy, security and interoperability of traceability data. Their effectiveness, however, relies on the institutional, operational and ethical foundations established by the previous categories.

Finally, “E: Performance and evaluation” provides the mechanisms for monitoring, assessing and continuously improving the framework. This adaptive layer ensures that traceability practices remain effective in the face of evolving regulatory standards, technological advancements and supply chain dynamics.

Together, these elements form a conceptual framework. “A. Governance and compliance” provides the essential foundation, enabling “B. Supply chain management” to ensure material integrity. Both, in turn, support Social and environmental priorities (“C. Social and environmental impacts”) and promote ethical and sustainable practices, while technology (“D. Technology and analytics”) enhances efficiency and security. “E. Performance and evaluation” ensures adaptability and sustained improvement.

### 5. Discussion

The categories and factors presented in Section 4 provide a basis for addressing the complex challenges inherent in mineral supply chain traceability. This discussion examines the conceptual framework in light of existing literature, clarifying how the proposed conceptual architecture integrates both the enabling conditions and core components required for traceability to function effectively across diverse mineral supply chains.

#### 5.1. Contextualizing enabling conditions and core components within existing literature

The enabling conditions and core components identified in this study constitute the main categories for traceability. These categories encompass complex characteristics that are grouped and characterised by factors, which are interdependent and complementary, each fulfilling distinct functions to ensure traceability. The literature highlights key interconnections across these categories and factors. First, regarding governance, Bleischwitz (2020) emphasises that A.1. *Integrity and compliance system* must be accompanied by A.4. *Governance mechanism and structures*, highlighting the institutional arrangements needed to ensure accountability and consistent oversight throughout the supply chain.

When considering technological factors, the literature points to a close relationship between governance and digital systems. For example, A.1. *Integrity and compliance systems* and D.2. *Blockchain technology* are jointly highlighted by Akbar et al. (2022) and Calvao & Archer (2021), who state that certifications and, in general, standards should be accompanied by the use of blockchain technology. Similarly, the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) (2020) emphasises combining technology-based solutions with governance reforms to capture the real and perceived benefits of blockchain systems. Other authors underscore the importance of blockchain for Artisanal and Small-Scale mining (ASM) and highlight the need to implement it in this sector (Mugurusi and Ahishakiye, 2022; Onifade et al., 2024).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Framework for traceability in the mineral supply chain.</figcaption></figure>

Regarding technologies on their own, several studies recommend combining D.2. *Blockchain technology* and D.3. *Certification technologies* (Ayan et al., 2022; Azevedo et al., 2023; Bakarich et al., 2020; Deberdt and Billon, 2021; Onifade et al., 2024) to track and maintain data integrity, as well as the use of D.1. *Analytical Proof of Origin (APO)* to help verify and audit blockchain systems (Desaulty et al., 2022). Taken together, these elements are essential for the functioning of traceability and illustrate how governance structures, operational practices, and technological tools must operate in a coordinated manner.

### 5.1.1. Category A: governance and compliance as foundations for traceability

"A. Governance and compliance" consistently emerges as a foundational dimension that provides transparency and accountability in the mineral traceability supply chain. Recent literature increasingly recognises transparency as a regulatory instrument that can influence corporate behaviour by allowing external stakeholders to scrutinise how multinational companies respect human rights and responsible sourcing norms (Ooms, 2022). Ensuring such transparency, however, requires every actor in the supply chain to manage and transmit information in a reliable manner, while simultaneously safeguarding commercially sensitive data and balancing disclosure with confidentiality needs (Thakur and Donnelly, 2010). According to Timmer & Kaufmann (2017), strengthening governance across the supply chain is one of the most effective ways for companies to advance traceability. Hofmann et al. (2018) further argue that this cannot be achieved through isolated actions; instead, supply chain strategies must be designed and implemented with a full end-to-end perspective.

Within this broader landscape, compliance with legal requirements plays a crucial role in shaping corporate behaviour, as companies are unlikely to implement meaningful action without appropriate laws in place (Dietrich and Melcher, 2022). International firms must align compliance systems with both national regulations and international standards to ensure material identification and traceability, fostering consumer trust (Zhao et al., 2020). Regulations should adopt a global

approach, covering minerals beyond 3TG, such as cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements (Huber and Steininger, 2022). While current legal actions address traceability, such as internal controls for conflict minerals (Kimberley Process, 2003), due diligence (European Commission, 2022b, 2022a; European Union, 2023; SER, 2017), and CoC protocols (European Union, 2017, 2023; SEC, 2012; SER, 2023), these measures remain limited and require stronger enforcement (Deberdt and Billon, 2021).

Building on these regulatory obligations, robust corporate governance mechanisms are essential to operationalise traceability within companies. These mechanisms include, for instance, identifying and managing suppliers (Cusato, 2021; Deberdt and Billon, 2021; McGaughey et al., 2022; Schleper et al., 2022) and reducing engagement with those linked to conflict minerals (Islam and van Staden, 2018). OECD (2016) goes further, advocating for the right to conduct unannounced audits of suppliers and to access relevant documentation as stipulated in commercial contracts and written agreements. These contracts should also specify traceability requirements (Schöneich et al., 2023). Just as suppliers are monitored, they should also be educated, hence, Fritz & Tessmann (2018) and Schleper et al. (2022) argue for the importance of training suppliers, underscoring the need to invest in programs for their development and capacity building.

Governments, therefore, play a critical role in promoting traceability by fostering voluntary transparency efforts (Bleischwitz, 2020). Sinding-Larsen & Wellmer (2012) suggest that government institutions should lead certification processes supported by independent audits, while Schleper et al. (2022) propose providing financial support through loans or grants to alleviate burdens on early-stage stakeholders. Credible sanctions are also essential to enforce compliance, yet opposition persists from countries lacking political will, which view traceability as a costly endeavour (Calvão and Archer, 2021). Furthermore, the institutional quality of resource-rich countries remains a significant challenge, requiring government-led efforts to strengthen public institutions, with support from international organisations, companies, and civil society (Murguía and Bastida, 2024).
Certification standards operate as key instruments of governance, aiming to ensure accountability and transparency in mineral supply chains while promoting sustainability and ESG performance (Erdmann and Franken, 2022). They guide stakeholders toward ethical mineral sourcing and can support governments in designing and enforcing regulations, particularly in contexts with weak governance (Mining and Sustainable Development Project, 2002; Murguía and Bastida, 2024). CoC standards are crucial for tracking materials but face challenges in harmonisation, which is essential to avoid confusion and ensure compatibility across certifications (Erdmann and Franken, 2022; Kickler et al., 2018). However, many standards lack inclusiveness, failing to fully cover entire supply chains, accommodate companies of all sizes, or address diverse minerals (Dietrich and Melcher, 2022). Auditing processes also present bottlenecks, as high costs, manual interventions, and brief inspections can lead to corruption and incomplete risk assessments, undermining ethical integrity (Deberdt and Le Billon, 2022; Fasterling and Demuijnck, 2013; Kapoor et al., 2022). These limitations may affect competitiveness (Calvão and Archer, 2021). Certification systems should therefore be designed and implemented with active stakeholders involvement (STRADE, 2018; Tröster and Hiete, 2019), ensuring clear and timely information dissemination (Deberdt and Billon, 2021), guaranteeing frequent, high-quality monitoring (Postma et al., 2021), and providing the disclosure of their outcomes to increase the availability of information for external stakeholders.

Beyond certification-specific engagement, stakeholder participation must also be understood at the broader supply-chain level. The active involvement of all stakeholders across the mineral supply chain is essential to ensure governance and traceability, particularly that of consumers, who can motivate companies to mobilise internal resources to achieve this goal (Timmer and Kaufmann, 2017). To advance this objective, it is crucial to identify these actors throughout the supply chain (LBMA, 2022; OECD, 2016; RMI, 2020). Subsequently, collaboration among these actors must be promoted (RESOLVE, 2010), fostering strong relationships (Mugurusi and Ahishakiye, 2022) and building trust (Lindagato et al., 2023).

### 5.1.2. Category B: the operational role of supply chain management

"B. Supply chain management" emerges in the literature as the operational core through which traceability is carried out. Although supply chains differ by commodity, some universal responsibilities apply across all of them (BSR, 2014). Ensuring effective supply chain management is essential to maintaining a healthy, transparent distribution channel from producers to consumers (Van Weele, 2002).

A critical responsibility within this category is preventing the mixing of materials from different sources. Regardless of the strength of traceability in earlier stages, their effectiveness is compromised if this separation is not ensured. For instance, certification loses its value when certified and uncertified minerals are mixed, undermining the role of standards and certification systems. Furthermore, the costs of traceability practices should not fall solely on upstream companies while downstream companies benefit. There is a lack of cost-sharing mechanisms contextualized to supply chains, especially those associated with conflict minerals (Schleper et al., 2022) and an equitable distribution of these costs is needed.

Data management represents another central component. This includes establishing robust mechanisms for collecting, verifying, and securely storing supply chain information, such as supplier identities, process details, and sustainability metrics, to enhance transparency and traceability (Aung and Chang, 2014; Trummer et al., 2022). Reliable data collection, covering the entire lifecycle of materials and integrating primary and secondary sources, is fundamental (Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, 2011) for evaluating environmental and social impacts across the supply chain. However, the lack of consistent updates and proper management of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) databases, which provide critical sustainability information, creates challenges in tracking the origins and flows of raw materials across the supply chain

(Epstein and Yuthas, 2011).

Secure data storage is also essential to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access and tampering (Zhang et al., 2023). Ensuring data quality requires reliable, precise, cost-effective, and standardized methods to avoid errors in information records (Danieli and Lazzari, 2022). Furthermore, all members of the supply chain should have access to relevant information and share it accurately (Ayan et al., 2022), reinforcing transparency and enabling coordinated traceability efforts.

### 5.1.3. Category C: social and environmental dimensions of traceability

The category “C. Social and environmental impacts” draws attention to the broader socio-environmental consequences of mineral production, as well as to the interactions between companies, local communities and ASM. The literature highlights the social harms that may arise in mineral-producing regions, including human rights violations, the use of child labour and unsafe or precarious working conditions (Van Den Brink et al., 2019). These issues are most acute in countries where regulatory oversight is weak and where significant power asymmetries exist between extractive companies and affected communities (BSR, 2010; Moodie, 2014). The DRC is frequently cited as an example, where armed groups have been reported to coerce miners and perpetrate severe human rights abuses (Hofmann et al., 2018). At the same time, companies operating in downstream industries, particularly electronics, have faced criticism for contributing indirectly to the financing of such groups (Islam and van Staden, 2018). Hilson (2014) warns that pre-vailing narratives about conflict minerals, while important, should not overshadow long-term development needs.

For the approximately 49.5 million miners engaged in ASM (Hruschka, 2023), traceability could offer several advantages. According to Iguma Wakenge et al. (2021), implementing traceability in the DRC facilitates more transparent trade and greater security in mining areas by limiting the participation of armed groups in the trade. Moreover, these systems empower miners by organizing them into legal entities, such as cooperatives, which allows for a more equitable distribution of costs and benefits in the supply chains (Schleper et al., 2022).

Conversely, some authors argue that these systems may generate more inequalities than benefits for ASM. The costs, often borne by miners who are paid only for extracted mineral volumes at prices set by mining companies, place a significant economic burden on them (Calvão and Archer, 2021). Additionally, limited technical capacity to implement and use technologies, such as blockchain, excludes those without specialised knowledge. Inequalities further intensify for marginalized actors, especially female traders, who experience reduced empowerment (Byemba, 2020). Stringent certification requirements and international regulations make compliance difficult for many miners. Moreover, there are no concrete measures to support miners and their communities in the DRC (Fritz and Tessmann, 2018). Collectively, these factors often push artisanal miners to work illegally or under deplorable conditions, discouraging their incorporation into the legal market (Deberdt and Billon, 2021).

The inequalities resulting from traceability are partly attributed to initiatives that are often context-specific and overlook complex, heterogeneous social and political environments at the local level (Calvão and Archer, 2021; Vicol et al., 2018). It is essential that regulations incorporate mechanisms to support miners (Fritz and Tessmann, 2018). Without a supportive legal framework, ASM remains trapped in the informal sector, which obstructs access to formal markets and market product traceability from the source unfeasible.

### 5.1.4. Category D: technological and analytical tools for mineral traceability

"D. Technology and analytics" plays a critical, though supportive, role within mineral traceability framework. Digital Product Passports (DPPs) are emerging as key tools to improve the credibility and reliability of supply chain data by facilitating information exchange among
stakeholders (Battery Pass, 2024). In sectors like batteries, regulatory initiatives, such as the EU Battery Regulation 2023/1542 (European Union, 2023), and platforms, such as the Battery Passport by the Global Battery Alliance (GTK, 2020), demonstrate its potential to support informed purchasing decisions and enhance lifecycle transparency. Complementing this, certification technologies, such as QR codes and RFID, strengthen traceability by enabling the identification and tracking of materials through different stages of the supply chain. However, RFID faces challenges, including high costs and difficulties in achieving 100% reliability (Aung and Chang, 2014).

The physical fingerprinting based on the geological characteristics of raw materials offers another important complementary tool. In practice, fingerprint-based control sampling is often applied when doubts arise about the documented origin, functioning as an optional verification mechanism within the certification framework (Schütte et al., 2018). Nonetheless, fingerprinting approaches face limitations depending on the stage of the value chain at which they are applied. Metallurgical transformation may alter the fingerprint, and the integrity of the method downstream depends on both the original geochemical markers and the characteristics of the transformation processes. If materials are mixed, distinguishing different sources may still be possible when complete fingerprints of the final components are available in the reference database (Melcher et al., 2008). To date, fingerprinting has been applied primarily to the upstream supply chain.

The precision of the method is influenced by several challenges (GTK, 2020): the number and relevance of available fingerprints, considering the heterogeneities detectable within the same substance from different geographical origins but sourced from similar types of deposits; the comprehensiveness of the reference database and the presence of similar reference material; the stage of the value chain at which the method is applied; the complexity of production and trade; and the availability or absence of additional contextual information about the analysed material. Added to this is the need for clear guidelines for reliable data collection (Desaulty et al., 2022).

Finally, Blockchain technology provides a secure, decentralised method for recording and verifying transactions in the supply chain, but it still faces several challenges. It remains a new and largely untested technology (Feng Tian, 2016), with ambiguities in its implementation (Yousefi and Mohamadpour Tosarkani, 2022), which requires users to adapt and manage integration challenges. Additionally, there are technical limitations, if users are not adequately trained and false data is entered into the system, the results will lack consistency (GTK, 2020). There is no protection against the deliberate introduction of false information, so it is essential to ensure there is sufficient information, and above all, that it is accurate (Dietrich and Melcher, 2022). Moreover, the costs associated with these systems are high, as the computing power required to achieve the necessary scale for blockchain networks is substantial (RCS Global, 2017).

Despite these challenges, in the mining industry, it is mentioned that digital technologies (e.g., blockchain) may contribute to more than $425 billion for the stakeholders of the sector by 2025, and these technologies can decrease 610 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, leading to the improvement of health and well-being (World Economic Forum, 2017). The potential advantages of using blockchain include greater security, flexibility, and efficiency; robustness and therefore resilience against attacks or failures; independence from third parties (which enhance trust in the system); multi-user access; system reliability; reduced redundancy due to peer collaboration; and auditability and verifiability (Mugurusi and Ahishakiye, 2022).

### 5.1.5. Category E: performance, monitoring and adaptive capacity

"E. Performance and evaluation" encompasses the mechanisms required to track system functioning over time, including ongoing monitoring, systematic reviews and the use of performance metrics that enable traceability to remain effective and adaptable in dynamic environments. The adaptation and evolution of traceability are essential in a

rapidly changing context, where both technological and regulatory environments evolve at a considerable pace.

A critical aspect of system performance relates to the maintenance and updating of traceability databases. These databases must be regularly expanded to include new deposits and extraction sites (Desaulty et al., 2022). In parallel, the traceability must keep pace with the fast-evolving materials and manufacturing processes, incorporating new standards and requirements as needed (Rusch, 2014). Supply chains are also evolving, as evidenced by the emergence of secondary materials markets. The growth of secondary materials markets adds an additional layer of complexity, requiring traceability framework that can trace materials not only through primary supply chains but also across recycling, reprocessing, and circular-economy loops.

Regulatory changes further underscore the need for adaptability. Traceability must remain flexible to accommodate diverse and shifting legal landscapes across jurisdictions, including increasing expectations associated with emerging global legislative frameworks (McCall-Smith and Rühmkorf, 2018). This demands systems capable of adjusting to new compliance requirements without losing continuity or reliability.

Beyond adaptation, effective traceability requires a forward-looking approach to performance management. An efficient traceability framework must not only identify and address current issues but also proactively prevent future problems through preventive measures and continuous learning mechanisms (Van Buren et al., 2021). This involves incorporating improvement cycles, feedback loops, and regular evaluations to ensure that traceability framework remain robust, relevant, and capable of supporting responsible mineral supply chains over time.

## 5.2. Comparison with current models and limitations

Architectures addressing traceability in mineral supply chains remain limited in the academic literature. In February 2025, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published joint guidance (OECD and IEA, 2025) highlighting the strategic importance of traceability mechanisms to ensure responsible and resilient critical minerals supply chains. This model falls into four main categories: (i) Commodity-specific risk assessment, (ii) Technical infrastructure, (iii) Governance and verification, and (iv) Supply chain collaboration.

This framework broadly covers the components and distributes them into four elements, which the framework of this study also addresses. Although the IEA-OECD document mentions the “continuous improvement” of traceability framework, such as adaptation to regulatory requirements, it does not include this as a category. In comparison, the approach proposed in this research moves towards greater operationalization by structuring the components into a hierarchical architecture that integrates enabling conditions and core components. In addition, there are relevant differences in the depth of treatment of social aspects. While the IEA model makes general references to ESG data and shared responsibilities, the present framework gives significant weight to the social dimension, especially in the inclusion of vulnerable stakeholders such as artisanal miners. However, the model proposed by these organisations complements this research by addressing practical aspects such as costs, interoperability and environmental impacts of technological solutions, which represents an opportunity for future adaptations of the framework presented here.

The novelty of this study lies in its integrated, system-level organisation of traceability components, combining knowledge from academic research, regulatory instruments, and expert consultations. By articulating how these elements interact within a conceptual architecture, the framework provides a more specific and strategic basis for analysing the enabling conditions and core components necessary to implement traceability, an aspect not addressed by the existing model.

Despite the strengths of the proposed conceptual framework and its complementarity with the existing model, several limitations of this study must be acknowledged. Although the framework was informed by
expert consultation, the number of contributors was limited, and certain regions, supply chain roles and stakeholder perspectives may be under-represented. In addition, the insights derived from the literature and expert input are inherently context-dependent, meaning that variations in regulatory environments, supply chain structures, or commodity-specific characteristics may influence how the categories and factors manifest in practice. Furthermore, the analysis focuses on the strategic and structural components of traceability, rather than on detailed operational metrics, implementation pathways or cost considerations.

## 6. Conclusion

This study contributes to the literature by proposing an integrated conceptual framework for mineral supply chain traceability that brings together enabling conditions and core components within a coherent structure. Building on an extensive review of academic, regulatory, and technical sources, and refined through expert validation, the framework organises traceability across five interdependent categories: Governance and compliance, Supply chain management, Social and environmental impacts, Technology and analytics, and Performance and evaluation. Rather than treating traceability as a purely technical solution, the framework conceptualizes it as a systemic process integrated into institutional arrangements, operational practices, and social and environmental responsibilities.

A key insight emerging from the framework is the foundational role of governance and compliance in enabling effective traceability. Without robust institutional structures, clear responsibilities, and alignment with regulatory and voluntary standards, traceability initiatives risk becoming superficial or symbolic. Similarly, supply chain management practices are critical for ensuring material flow integrity, while social and environmental dimensions reinforce traceability within broader sustainability objectives. Technological tools such as blockchain or digital product passports can enhance transparency and data integrity, however, their effectiveness depend on robust governance and supply chain management to realise their full potential.

From a practical perspective, the proposed framework provides a structured reference for industry actors, policymakers, and certification

bodies seeking to design, evaluate, or strengthen traceability systems across various mineral supply chains. By explicitly highlighting the interdependencies between institutional, operational, social, and technological dimensions, the framework promotes more holistic decision-making and helps avoid narrowly focused or technology-driven implementations that fail to address underlying risks.

For future work, further research should examine the distinct challenges faced by specific mineral supply chains across different regions and regulatory contexts. Additionally, applying the framework in an empirical case study would allow for practical validation, demonstrating how the proposed categories and factors operate in real-world settings and refining the model for broader application. In this study, no weights or priorities are assigned to individual categories and factors, as the framework is developed at a conceptual level. Future studies could operationalise the framework using multi-criteria decision-making approaches, such as pairwise comparisons, to support the assignment of weights and the prioritisation of traceability components. Such approaches would enable an examination of how the relative importance of these components varies across different minerals or supply-chain configurations, thereby supporting a more strategic and context-sensitive implementation.

## Acknowledgements

This article was supported by the MaDiTraCe project, which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program of the European Union [Grant number 101091502/Topic: HORIZON-CL4-2022-RESILIENCE-01].

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Paulina Fernández:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Michael Tost:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision. **Daniel Monfort Climent:** Writing – review & editing. **Thania Nowaz:** Writing – review & editing. **Emilio Castillo:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

# Appendix

<table><caption>**Table A1**
List references from which the factors and categories were recognised.</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Factors</th><th>Source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A. Governance and compliance</td><td>Integrity and compliance system<br>Risk assessment<br>Regulatory framework<br>Governance mechanism and structures<br>Stakeholder engagement<br>Reporting</td><td>A. Griffin et al. (2014); Australian Government (2022); Baik et al. (2024); Bleischwitz (2020); Boersma (2018); Brilliant Earth (2023); Callangan et al. (2021); Calvão & Archer (2021); Cartier et al. (2018); CCCMC (2022); Chilton & Sarfaty (2017); Christmann (2021); Cusato (2021); De Jong & Sauerwein (2021); Dean & Marshall (2020); Deberdt & Billon (2021); Deberdt & Le Billon (2022); DMCC (2020); EICC & GeSI (2012); EPRM (2024); Esoimeme (2020); European Union (2017, 2023); FAIRPHONE (2023); Gäbler et al. (2020); Genter & Bryson (2014); Giurco et al. (2014); GTK (2020); Hoffmeister (2022); Hwang (2013); ICMM (2015); Intel (2013); Islam & van Staden (2018); ITSCI (2021); Kapoor et al. (2022); Kimberley Process (2003); LBMA (2022); Liu et al. (2020); Martínez San Millán (2021); Mateus & Martins (2021); McGaughey et al. (2022); MINESPIDER (2024); Nathan & Sarkar (2010); Niu et al. (2024); Nolan & Bott (2018); OECD (2016, 2022); Parianos et al. (2021); Partzsch & Vlaskamp (2016); Pasvanka et al. (2019); Pochon et al. (2020, 2021); RCS Global (2017); RCS Global Group (2023); Rende Taylor & Shih (2019); RESOLVE (2010); Responsible sourcing network (2019); Rio Tinto (2024); RMI (2020); RMI & GRI (2018); Rusch (2014); Rüttinger et al. (2015); Schleper et al. (2022); Schöneich et al. (2023); Schütte et al. (2018); SEC (2012); SER (2023); Shuai et al. (2022); Sinding-Larsen & Wellmer (2012); Siqueira-Gay & Sánchez (2021); STRADE (2018); SveMin (2019); Taka (2016); Teufel et al. (2024); Tillyväxtanalys (2019); Timmer & Kaufmann (2017); Trace4EU Consortium (2024); Tröster & Hiete (2019); Valcambi (2023); Van Buren et al. (2021); Van Den Brink et al. (2019); Vlaskamp (2019); Wang et al. (2020); Wolfram (2023); World Economic Forum & Global Battery Alliance (2019); Young et al. (2014); Zhang et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>B. Supply chain management</td><td>Supply chain<br>Supply chain integrity<br>Data management</td><td>Fritz & Tessmann (2018); Genter & Bryson (2014); Kapoor et al. (2022); Lesniak et al. (2023); Nathan & Sarkar (2010); Pasvanka et al. (2019); Schleper et al. (2022); Van Buren et al. (2021); Van Den Brink et al. (2019); Wang et al. (2020); Young et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>C. Social and environmental impacts</td><td>Artisanal miners<br>Community involvement</td><td>Bleischwitz (2020); BSR (2014); Calvão & Archer (2021); De Jong & Sauerwein (2021); Deberdt & Billon (2021); Deberdt & Le Billon (2022); George et al. (2022); Giurco et al. (2014); Hilson (2014); Huber & Steininger (2022); Jha</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>Table A1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Factors</th><th>Source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Social responsibility</td><td>et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2020); Liu et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2020); Mugurusi & Ahishakiye (2022); Nathan & Sarkar (2010); Onifade et al. (2024); Ooms (2022); Pedersen et al. (2021); RCS Global Group (2023); Schleper et al. (2022); Schöneich et al. (2023); Sinding-Larsen & Wellmer (2012); Van Buren et al. (2021); Van Den Brink et al. (2019); Yang et al. (2015); Yousefi & Mohamadpour Tosarkani (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>D. Technology and analytics</td><td>Analytical proof of Origin (APO)<br>Blockchain technology<br>Certification technologies<br>Digital product passport</td><td>Akbar et al. (2022); Apple Inc (2022); Applied Spectra (2023); Australian Government (2022); Azevedo et al. (2023); Bakarich et al. (2020); Battery Pass (2024); Bergquist & Vanhatalo (2020); Bleischwitz et al. (2012); Brilliant Earth (2023); Calvão & Archer (2021); Cartier et al. (2018); CE-RISE (2023); Christmann (2021); Circulor (2024); CIRPASS (2023); Danieli & Lazzari (2022); De Beers group (2022); Deberdt & Le Billon (2022); Desaulty et al. (2022); EIT RawMaterials (2022); European Union (2023); Everledger (2024); Gäbler et al. (2020); George et al. (2022); GTK (2020); Hidalgo et al. (2023); IBM (2024); Jha et al. (2023); Ji et al. (2022); Kapoor et al. (2022); Lesniak et al. (2023); Lim et al. (2021); Lindagato et al. (2023); Long et al. (2023); Melcher et al. (2021); MINESPIDER (2024); MOBI (2022); Mugurusi & Ahishakiye (2022); Nathan & Sarkar (2010); Niu et al. (2024); Onifade et al. (2024); Pasvanka et al. (2019); Pochon et al. (2020, 2021); RCS Global (2017); RCS Global Group (2023); Rio Tinto (2024); Schleper et al. (2022); Schöneich et al. (2023); Shuai et al. (2022); SourceCertain (2024); Spherity (2023); SveMin (2019); Teufel et al. (2024); Trace4EU Consortium (2024); Trummer et al. (2022); Van Den Brink et al. (2019); Vodenicharova (2020); Wakenge et al. (2018); Wang et al. (2020); Wolfram (2023); World Economic Forum & Global Battery Alliance (2019); Yousefi & Mohamadpour Tosarkani (2022); Zhao et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>E. Performance and evaluation</td><td>Monitoring<br>Evaluation and improvement<br>Adaptation and innovation</td><td>Akbar et al. (2022); Desaulty et al. (2022); Genter & Bryson (2014); Islam & van Staden (2018); Onifade et al. (2024); RCS Global Group (2023); Rusch (2014); Tröster & Hiete (2019); Trummer et al. (2022); Van Buren et al. (2021); Yang & Chen (2023)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## References

A Griffin, P., H Lont, D., Sun, Y., 2014. Supply chain sustainability: evidence on conflict minerals. Pac. Account. Rev. 26 (1/2), 28–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-04-2013-0023.

Akbar, M.A., Leiva, V., Rafi, S., Qadri, S.F., Mahmood, S., Alsanad, A., 2022. Towards roadmap to implement blockchain in healthcare systems based on a maturity model. J. Softw. Evol. Process 34 (12), e2500. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2500.

Apple Inc. (2022). Form SD specialized disclosure report. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000114036123012065/brhc10048434sd.htm.

Applied Spectra. (2023). Geochemical fingerprinting of conflict minerals using LIBS. http://www.appliedspectra.com/downloads/App-Note-Geochemical%20Fingerprinting%20of%20Conflict%20Minerals.pdf.

Aung, M.M., Chang, Y.S., 2014. Traceability in a food supply chain: safety and quality perspectives. Food Control 39, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.11.007.

Australian Government. (2022). Development of a trusted supply chain for Australian battery minerals and products. https://fbicrc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/WEB_FBICRC-Provenance-Scene-Setting-Report-single-pages-VFINAL-26Oct.pdf.

Awuah-Offei, K., Adekpedjou, A., 2011. Application of life cycle assessment in the mining industry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0246-6.

Ayan, B., Güner, E., Son-Turan, S., 2022. Blockchain technology and sustainability in supply chains and a closer look at different industries: a mixed method approach. Logistics 6 (4), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6040085.

Azevedo, P., Gomes, J., Romão, M., 2023. Supply chain traceability using blockchain. Oper. Manage. Res. 16 (3), 1359–1381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-023-00359-y.

Baik, B., Even-Tov, O., Han, R., Park, D., 2024. The real effects of supply chain transparency regulation: evidence from section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. J. Account. Res. 62 (2), 551–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12530.

Bakarich, K.M., Castonguay, J.Jack, O’Brien, P.E., 2020. The use of blockchains to enhance sustainability reporting and assurance*. Account. Perspect. 19 (4), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12241.

Battery Pass. (2024). The value of the EU battery passport. https://thebatterypass.eu/images/images/value-assessment/pdf/2024_BatteryPassport_Value-Assessment.pdf.

Behnke, K., Janssen, M.F.W.H.A., 2020. Boundary conditions for traceability in food supply chains using blockchain technology. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 52, 101969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.025.

Berg, J., Myllymaa, L., 2021. Impact of Blockchain on Sustainable Supply Chain Practices. Jönköping International Business School. University of Jönköping. Master Thesis in Business Administration.

Bergquist, B., Vanhatalo, E., 2020. In-situ measurement in the iron ore pellet distribution chain using active RFID technology. Powd. Technol. 361, 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.11.042.

Bleischwitz, R., 2020. Mineral resources in the age of climate adaptation and resilience. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (2), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12951.

Bleischwitz, R., Dittrich, M., Pierdicca, C., 2012. Coltan from Central Africa, international trade and implications for any certification. Resour. Pol. 37 (1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.12.008.

BMW GROUP. (2020). BMW Group uses Blockchain to drive supply chain transparency. https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0307164EN/bmw-gro-up-uses-blockchain-to-drive-supply-chain-transparency?language=en.

Boersma, M., 2018. Between norms and practice: civil society perspectives on the legitimacy of multistakeholder initiatives to eliminate child labor. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27 (5), 612–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2066.

Bogaardt, M.J., Poppe, K.J., Viool, V., 2016. Cybersecurity in the agrifood sector. Capgemini Consulting.

Bourn, J. (2003). Identifying and tracking livestock in England. National Audit Office. https://www.nao.gov.uk.

Brilliant Earth. (2023). Brilliant Earth. https://www.brilliantearth.com/.

BSR. (2010). Conflict minerals and the democratic republic of Congo. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_ConflictMinerals_and the_DRC.pdf.

BSR. (2014). A guide to traceability A practical approach to advance sustainability in global supply chains. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_UNGC_Guide_to Traceability.pdf.

Eyamba, G.K., 2020. Formalization of artisanal and small-scale mining in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: an opportunity for women in the new tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (3TG) supply chain? Extr. Ind. Soc. 7 (2), 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2020.03.001.

Callangan, D.J., Rada, M.V., Gumasing, J., 2021. Conflict minerals supplier due diligence process improvement. In: International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Italy. IEOM Society International. In: https://ieomsociety.org/proceedings/2021rome/389.pdf.

Calvão, F., Archer, M., 2021. Digital extraction: blockchain traceability in mineral supply chains. Polit. Geogr. 87, 102381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102381.

Cartier, L.E., Ali, S.H., Krzemnicki, M.S., 2018. Blockchain, chain of custody and trace elements: an overview of tracking and traceability opportunities in the gem industry. J. Gem. 36 (3), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.15506/JoG.2018.36.3.212.

CCCMC. (2022). Chinese Due diligence guidelines for responsible mineral supply chain. https://www.cccmc.org.cn/shfw/ff80808181489d3201820f3ad0a101201.html.

CE-RISE. (2023). CE-RISE | Circular economy resource information system. https://ce-riise.org/.

Chilton, A., Sarfaty, G., 2017. The limitations of supply chain disclosure regimes. Stanford. J. Int. Law 53 (766), 1.

Christmann, P., 2021. Mineral resource governance in the 21st century and a sustainable European Union. Min. Econ. 34 (2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-021-00265-4.

Circular. (2024). Circular. https://www.circular.org/.

CIRPASS. (2023). CIRPASS digital Product Passport. https://cirpassproject.eu/.

Cusato, E., 2021. Transnational law and the politics of conflict minerals regulation: constraining the extractive industry as a 'partner' for peace. Transnatl. Leg. Theo. 12 (2), 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2021.1967683.

Danieli, P.P., Lazzari, F., 2022. Honey traceability and authenticity. Review of current methods most used to face this problem. J. Apicult. Sci. 66 (2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.2478/jas-2022-0012.

De Angelis, M., Adgüzel, F., Amatulli, C., 2017. The role of design similarity in consumers' evaluation of new green products: an investigation of luxury fashion brands. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 1515–1527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.230.

De Beers group. (2022). Tracr. https://www.debeersgroup.com/media/company-news/2022/de-beers-group-introduces-worlds-first-blockchain-backed-diamond-source-platform-at-scale.

De Jong, T.U., Sauerwein, T., 2021. State-owned minerals, village-owned land: how a shared property rights framework helped formalize artisanal diamond miners in Côte d'Ivoire between 1986 and 2016. Resour. Pol. 70, 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101920.

Dean, O., Marshall, S., 2020. A race to the middle of the pack: an analysis of slavery and human trafficking statements submitted by Australian banks under the UK Modern Slavery Act. Aust. J. Hum. Rights 26 (1), 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2020.1712515.
Deberdt, R., Billon, P.L., 2021. Conflict minerals and battery materials supply chains: a mapping review of responsible sourcing initiatives. Extr. Ind. Soc. 8 (4), 100935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100935.

Deberdt, R., Le Billon, P., 2022. The green transition in context—Cobalt responsible sourcing for battery manufacturing. Soc. Nat. Resour. 35 (7), 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2049410.

Desaury, A.M., Monfort Climent, D., Lefebvre, G., Cristiano-Tassi, A., Peralta, D., Perret, S., Urban, A., Guerrot, C., 2022. Tracing the origin of lithium in Li-ion batteries using lithium isotopes. Nat. Commun. 13 (1), 4172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31850-y.

Dietrich, V., Melcher, F., 2022. Mineral raw material supply chain transparency and traceability: does provenance matter in the supply chain? BHM Berg- Und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte 167 (12), 594–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-022-01274-8.

DMCC. (2020). DMCC rules for risk based due diligence in the gold and precious metals supply chain. https://www.dmcc.ae/application/files/3116/0083/7591/DMCC_Rules_RBD_GPM_-_v2_Final_002.pdf.

EICC, & GeSI. (2012). EICC and GeSI gold supply chain transparency: smelter audit. https://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/49051025.pdf.

EIT RawMaterials. (2022). EIT RawMaterials funded project to develop a blockchain based circular system for assessing rare earth sustainability. https://eitrawmaterials.eu/eitrawmaterials-funded-project-to-develop-a-blockchain-based-circular-system-for-assessing-rare-earth-sustainability/.

Elf, M. (2025). The impact of traceability issues on product quality, consumer trust, and global competitiveness. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38864 1982_The_Impact_of_Traceability_Issues-On_Product_Quality_Consumer_Trust_And_Global_Competitiveness/.

EPRM. (2024). European partnership for Responsible Minerals (EPRM). https://europe an partnership-responsibleminerals.eu/.

Epstein, M.J., Yuthas, K., 2011. Conflict minerals: managing an emerging supply-chain problem. Environ. Qual. Manage. 21 (2), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tqm.20314.

Erdmann, M., & Franken, G. (2022). Sustainability Standard Systems for Mineral resources: a comparative overview. https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Min rohstoffe/Downloads/studie_sustainability_standard_systems_2022.pdf?_blob=publ icationFile&v=7.

Esoimeme, E.E., 2020. Using the risk-based approach to curb modern slavery in the supply chain: the Anglo American and Marks and Spencer example. J. Financ. Crime 27 (2), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-05-2019-0056.

European Commission. (2015). Traceability across the value chain. https://ec.europa.eu /docsroom/documents/13393/attachments/2/translations/en/renditions/native.

European Commission. (2022a). Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending directive (Eu) 2019/1937. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52 022PC0071.

European Commission. (2022b). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022 PC0453.

European Union. (2017). Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conten t/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32017R0821.

European Union. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1 542&qid=1697043095627.

European Union. (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L 202401760.

Everledger. (2024). Blockchain asset tracking. https://everledger.io/blockchain-asset-tracking/.

FAIRPHONE. (2023). FAIRPHONE. https://www.fairphone.com/en/category/fair-materials/.

Fasterling, B., Demuijnck, G., 2013. Human rights in the void? Due diligence in the UN guiding principles on business and Human rights. J. Busi. Ethics 116 (4), 799–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1822-z.

Tian, Feng, 2016a. An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID & blockchain technology. In: 2016 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICSSSM.2016.7538424.

Fritz, M.M.C., Tessmann, N., 2018. Management of conflict minerals in automotive supply chains: where to start from? In: Brandenburg, M., Hahn, G.J., Rebs, T. (Eds.), Social and Environmental Dimensions of Organizations and Supply Chains, Social and Environmental Dimensions of Organizations and Supply Chains, Springer International Publishing, pp. 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59587-0_10.

FSA. (2002). Traceability in the food chain. https://www.adiveter.com/ftp_public/articu lo361.pdf.

Gäbler, H.E., Schink, W., Gawronski, T., 2020. Data evaluation for Cassiterite and Coltan fingerprinting. Minerals 10 (10), 926. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10100926.

Genter, S., Bryson, I., 2014. Incorporating respect for Human rights in petroleum projects in Papua New Guinea: is compliance measurement possible or is performance about setting standards for acceptable practice? Day 3 Wed, D031S050R003. https://doi. org/10.2118/168467-MS. March 19, 2014.

George, J., Whitten, D., Metters, R., Abbey, J., 2022. Emancipatory technology and DEVELOPING-WORLD supply chains: a case study of African women gemstone miners. J. Oper. Manage. 68 (6–7), 619–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1217.

Giruco, D., McLellan, B., Franks, D.M., Nansai, K., Prior, T., 2014. Responsible mineral and energy futures: views at the nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 322–338. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.102.

GTK. (2020). BATTRACE – Sustainable processing and traceability of battery metals, minerals and materials. https://www.gtk.fi/en/research-project/battrace-sustainab le-processing-and-traceability-of-battery-metals-minerals-and-materials/.

Gustafsson, M., Schilling-Vacaflor, A., Lenschow, A., 2023. The politics of supply chain regulations: towards foreign corporate accountability in the area of human rights and the environment? Regul. Gov. 17 (4), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rego.12526.

Hidalgo, M.J., Emilio Gaiad, J., Casimiro Goicoechea, H., Mendoza, A., Pérez-Rodríguez, M., Gerardo Pellerano, R., 2023. Geographical origin identification of mandarin fruits by analyzing fingerprint signatures based on multielemental composition. Food Chem. X. 20, 101040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fochx.2023.101040.

Hilson, G., 2014. Constructing' Ethical mineral supply chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Malawian fair trade rubies. Dev. Change 45 (1), 53–78. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/dech.12069.

Hoffmeister, F., 2022. The European regulatory approach on supply chain responsibility. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 25 (2), 221–250. https://doi.org/10.5771/ 1435-439X-2022-2-221.

Hofmann, H., Schleper, M.C., Blome, C., 2018. Conflict minerals and supply chain due diligence: an exploratory study of multi-tier supply chains. J. Busi. Ethics 147 (1), 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2963-z.

Hruschka, F. (2023). ASM Inventory: world maps of artisanal and small-scale mining. https://artisanalmining.org/inventory/.

Huber, S.T., Steininger, K.W., 2022. Critical sustainability issues in the production of wind and solar electricity generation as well as storage facilities and possible solutions. J. Clean. Prod. 339, 130720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2022.130720.

Hwang, J. (2013). Conflict minerals: a snapshot. SMT Magazine. https://www.jennieh wang.com/pdfs/ConflictMinerals.pdf.

IBM. (2024). IBM Blockchain. https://www.ibm.com/blockchain.

ICMM. (2015). Demonstrating value A guide to responsible sourcing. https://www. icmm.com/webpage/publications/pdfs/mining-metals/2015/guidance_responsible -sourcing.pdf?cb=13366.

Iguma Wakeke, C., Bashwira Nyenyezi, M.R., Bergh, S.I., Cuvelier, J., 2018. From ‘conflict minerals’ to peace? Reviewing mining reforms, gender, and state performance in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Extr. Ind. Soc. 8 (2), 100894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100894.

Intel. (2013). Intel's efforts to achieve a “conflict-free” supply chain. https://supplier.in tel.com/Assets/PDF/Policy/policy-conflict-minerals.pdf.

International Energy Agency. (2022). The role of critical world energy outlook special report minerals in clean energy transitions. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/ assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinClean EnergyTransitions.pdf.

Islam, M.A., van Staden, C.J., 2018. Social movement NGOS and the comprehensiveness of conflict mineral disclosures: evidence from global companies. Account. Org. Soc. 65, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.11.002.

ISO. (2015). ISO 9000:2015 quality management systems-fundamentals and vocabulary. https://www.iso.org/standard/45481.html.

ISO. (2019). ISO/DIS 22095. Chain of custody—General terminology and models. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:22095:dis-ed:1-v1:en.

ITSCI. (2021). The ITSCI Programme. https://www.itsci.org/company-annual-report s-public/.

Jha, A., Young, A., Sattarvand, J., 2023. Blockchain Technology and Mining Industry: a review. Min. Metall. Explor. 40 (6), 2269–2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461- 023-00874-3.

Ji, C., Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, J., Wu, Z., Wang, X., Xie, Y., Zhao, J., Shi, R., Ma, X., Khan, M.R., Busquets, R., He, X., Zhu, Y., Zhu, S., Zheng, W., 2022. Multi-element analysis and origin discrimination of panax notoginseng based on inductively coupled plasma tandem mass spectrometry (ICP-MS/MS). Molecules 27 (9), 2982. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27092982.

Kapoor, I., Pratt-Rogers, W., Kahraman, M.M., 2022. The problem of conflict minerals: a review of current approaches and a web 3.0 inspired road ahead. Resour. Pol. 79, 103064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103064.

Kickler, K., Kosmol, J., Franken, G., Scholl, C., Mori Junior, R., Rüttinger, L., & Sturman, K. (2018). Mapping sustainability standards systems for mining and mineral supply chains. BGR. https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Gemeinsames/Produkte/Downloads/Co mmmodity_TopNews/Rohstoffwirtschaft/59_sustainability_standards.pdf;jsessionid =85D32BD8F54F7D9AA9C2D70FC32CE9E0.internet942?_blob=publicationFile &v=5.

Kimberley Process. (2003). Kimberley process. Kimberley process. https://www.kimbe rleyprocess.com/en.

Kros, J.F., Liao, Y., Kirchoff, J.F., Zemanek Jr., J.E., 2019. Traceability in the supply chain. Int. J. Appl. Logist. 9 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAL.2019010101.

Kumar, V., Hallqvist, C., Ekwall, D., 2017. Developing a framework for traceability implementation in the textile supply chain. Systems (Basel) 5 (2), 33. https://doi. org/10.3390/systems5020033.
LBMA. (2022). LBMA Responsible Sourcing Programme Disclosure guidance. https://cdn.lbma.org/downloads/Disclosure-Guidance-GDL-RGG-v3-FINAL.pdf.

Lee, J., Bazilian, M., Sovacool, B., Greene, S., 2020. Responsible or reckless? A critical review of the environmental and climate assessments of mineral supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (10), 103009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9f8c.

Lesniak, T., Kustra, A.J., Krolikowska, E., 2023. Directions for using the blockchain technology in the raw materials industry. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi - Min. Resour. Manage. https://doi.org/10.24425/gsm.2021.139738.

Liao, Y., Kwaramba, C.S., Kros, J.F., 2020. Supply chain traceability: an institutional theory perspective. Int. J. Logist. Econ. Glob. 8 (3), 193. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLEG.2020.109609.

Lim, C.M., Carey, M., Williams, P.N., Koidis, A., 2021. Rapid classification of commercial teas according to their origin and type using elemental content with X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 4, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2021.02.002.

Lindagato, P., Li, Y., Yang, G., Machácek, J., 2023. An advanced overview of recent developments in tantalum, tin, and tungsten production in Rwanda. Int. J. Min. Miner. Eng. 14 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMME.2023.131600.

Liu, W., Agusdinata, D.B., Eakin, H., Romero, H., 2022. Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: a pilot study of consumers' perceptions of impacts. Resour. Pol. 75, 102523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102523.

Liu, X.L., Wang, W.M., Guo, H., Barenji, A.V., Li, Z., Huang, G.Q., 2020. Industrial blockchain based framework for product lifecycle management in industry 4.0. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 63, 101897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcm.2019.101897.

Long, Y., Feng, T., Fan, Y., Liu, L., 2023. Adopting blockchain technology to enhance green supply chain integration: the moderating role of organizational culture. Bus. Strat. Environ. 32 (6), 3326–3343. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3302.

Martínez San Millán, C., 2021. The different initiatives on due diligence for responsible mineral supply chains from conflict-affected and high-risk areas: are there more effective alternatives? Paix et Securite Internationales 9, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.25267/paix_secur_int.2021.i9.1201.

Mateus, A., Martins, L., 2021. Building a mineral-based value chain in Europe: the balance between social acceptance and secure supply. Min. Econ. 34 (2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-020-00242-3.

Mattila, J., Seppälä, T., Holmström, J., 2016. Product-centric information management—A case study of a shared platform with blockchain technology. In: Industry Studies Association Conference.

McCall-Smith, K.L., Rühmkorf, A., 2018. Sustainable global supply chains: from transparency to due diligence. In: Gammage, Clair, Novitz, Tonia (Eds.), Sustainable Trade, Investment, and Finance: Toward Responsible and Coherent Regulatory Frameworks. Edward Elgar. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3253152.

McGaughy, F., Voss, H., Cullen, H., Davis, M.C., 2022. Corporate responses to tackling modern slavery: a comparative analysis of Australia, France and the United Kingdom. Busi. Hum. Rights J. 7 (2), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2021.47.

Melcher, F., Dietrich, V., Gäbler, H.E., 2021. Analytical proof of origin for raw materials. Minerals 11 (5), 461. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11050461.

Melcher, F., Sitnikova, M., Graupner, orsten, Martin, N., Oberthür, T., Henjes-Kunst, F., Gäbler, E., Gerdes, G., Brätz, H., Davis, D.W., Dewaele, S., 2008. Fingerprinting of conflict minerals:columbite-tantalite (“coltan”) ores. SGA News 23, 1–13.

MINESPIDER. (2024). The power of blockchain. https://www.minespider.com/blockch ain-technology.

Mining, & Sustainable Development Project. (2002). Breaking new ground: mining, minerals, and sustainable development: the report of the MMSD project (Vol. 1).

MOBI. (2020). Electric vehicle battery state of health business white paper. https://dlt. mobi/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/MOBI-Battery-SOH_2022.pdf.

Moodie, A. (2014). Amid legal uncertainty on conflict minerals, alternatives emerge. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/conflict-free-minera ls-ruling-litigation-apple-intel.

Mugurusi, G., Ahishakiye, E., 2022. Blockchain technology needs for sustainable mineral supply chains: a framework for responsible sourcing of cobalt. Procedia Comput. Sci. 200, 638–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.262.

Muirhead, J., Porter, T., 2019. Traceability in global governance. Glob. Netw. 19 (3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12237.

Murguía, D.I., Bastida, A.E., 2024. The elephant in the mine: why voluntary sustainability standards are insufficient to ensure responsible mining. Extr. Ind. Soc. 19, 101485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2024.101485.

Nathan, D., Sarkar, S., 2010. Blood on your mobile? Econ. Polit. Wkly. 45 (43), 22–24.

Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI). (2020). The practice and potential of blockchain technologies for extractive sector governance. https://resourcegovernan ce.org/analysis-tools/publications/practice-potential-blockchain-extractive-secto r-governance.

Niu, J., He, J., He, Y., 2024. Harnessing FinTech for sustainable mineral development with innovative financing strategies in China. Resour. Pol. 90, 104697. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104697.

Nolan, J., Bott, G., 2018. Global supply chains and human rights: spotlight on forced labour and modern slavery practices. Aust. J. Hum. Rights 24 (1), 44–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2018.1441610.

OECD. (2016). OECD Due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

OECD. (2019). An introduction to the OECD Due diligence guidance for responsible mineral supply chains for upstream actor. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/An-introd uction-to-the-oecd-due-diligenice-guidance-for-upstream-actors.pdf.

OECD. (2022). The role of sustainability initiatives in mandatory due diligence: background note on regulatory developments concerning due diligence for responsible business conduct. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/the-role-of-sustaina bility-initiatives-in-mandatory-due-diligenice-note-for-policy-makers.pdf.

OECD & IEA. (2025). The role of traceability in critical mineral supply chains. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-traceability-in-critical-mineral-supply-chains.

Onifade, M., Adebisi, J.A., Zvarivada, T., 2024. Recent advances in blockchain technology: prospects, applications and constraints in the minerals industry. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 38 (7), 497–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2024.2319453.

Ooms, M.E.A.A.M., 2022. Risk-based due diligence reporting in global mineral supply chains and the rule through transparency. Theo. Pract. Legis. 10 (1), 48–66. https:// doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2022.2033943.

Parianos, J., Lipton, I., Nimmo, M., 2021. Aspects of estimation and reporting of mineral resources of seabed polymetallic nodules: a contemporaneous case study. Minerals 11 (2), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11020200.

Partiti, E., 2022. The place of voluntary standards in managing social and environmental risks in global value chains. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 13 (1), 114–137. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/err.2021.34.

Partzsch, L., Vlaskamp, M.C., 2016. Mandatory due diligence for 'conflict minerals' and illegally logged timber: emergence and cascade of a new norm on foreign accountability. Extr. Ind. Soc. 3 (4), 978–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. exis.2016.07.003.

Pasvanka, K., Tzachristas, A., Proestos, C., 2019. Quality tools in wine traceability and authenticity. Quality Control in the Beverage Industry. Elsevier, pp. 289–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816681-9.00009-6.

Pedersen, A.F., Nielsen, J.O., Mempel, F., Bager, S.L., Jønsson, J.B., Corbera, E., 2021. The ambiguity of transparency in the artisanal and small-scale mining sector of Tanzania. Extr. Ind. Soc. 8 (4), 101004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. exis.2021.101004.

Perboli, G., Musso, S., Rosano, M., 2018. Blockchain in logistics and supply chain: a lean approach for designing real-world use cases. IEEE Access 6, 62018–62028. https:// doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2875782.

Pochon, A., Desaulty, A.M., Bailly, L., 2020. Handheld laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) as a fast and easy method to trace gold. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 35 (2), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9JA00437H.

Pochon, A., Desaulty, A.M., Bailly, L., Lach, P., 2021. Challenging the traceability of natural gold by combining geochemical methods: French Guiana example. Appl. Geochem. 129, 104952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2021.104952.

Postma, H., Geenen, S., Partzsch, L., 2021. Digging for due diligence: the case of non- state mineral supply chain regulation by ITSCI in Rwanda. Extr. Ind. Soc. 8 (3), 100920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100920.

Potts, J., Wenban-Smith, M., Turley, L., Lynch, M., 2018. State of Sustainability Initiative review: Standards and the Extractive Economy. The International Institute for Sustainable Development.

PwC. (2024). Consumers willing to pay 9.7% sustainability premium, even as cost-of-living and inflationary concerns weigh: PWC 2024 Voice of the Consumer Survey. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2024/pwc-2024-voice-of-consumer-survey.html.

RCS Global. (2017). Blockchain for traceability in minerals and metals supply chains: opportunities and challenges. https://www.rcsglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2 018/09/ICMM-Blockchain-for-Traceability-in-Minerals-and-Metal-Supply-Chains. pdf.

RCS Global Group. (2023). Better mining. https://www.rcsglobal.com/bettermining/.

Recabarren, J.I., Castillo, E., García, A., Cantallopts, J., 2024. Product differentiation in mineral commodities based on sustainability indicators: the case of copper mining. J. Clean. Prod. 476, 143786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143786.

Rende Taylor, L., Shih, E., 2019. Worker feedback technologies and combatting modern slavery in global supply chains: examining the effectiveness of remediation-oriented and due-diligence-oriented technologies in identifying and addressing forced labour and human trafficking. J. Br. Acad. 7 (s1), 131–165. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/ 007s1.131.

RESOLVE. (2010). Diamond Development Initiative International. https://www.resolve. ngo/docs/diamond-development-initiative-international.pdf.

Responsible sourcing network. (2019). Mining the disclosures 2019 an investor guide to conflict minerals and cobalt reporting in year six. https://www.sourcingnetwork. org/mining-the-disclosures.

Rio Tinto. (2010). Responsible value chain. https://www.riotinto.com/en/sustainabil ity/ethics-compliance/value-chain.

RMI. (2020). Responsible minerals initiative blockchain guidelines. https://www.respo siblemineralsinitiative.org/media/docs/RMI%20Blockchain%20Guidelines%20-% 20Second%20Edition%20-%20March%202020%20FINAL.pdf.

RMI, & GRI. (2018). Advancing reporting on responsible mineral sourcing. https://www. globalreporting.org/media/f0agnm4f/rmi-gri_advancing-reporting-on-respon si ble-minerals-sourcing.pdf.

Rusch, P. (2014). The vital role of manufacturing quality in the reliability of PV modules (N. G. Dhere, J. H. Wohlgemuth, & R. Jones-Albertus, Eds.; p. 91790X). https://doi. org/10.1117/12.2062281.

Rüttinger, L., & Corder, G. (2020). KlimRess – Impacts of climate change on mining, related environmental risks and raw material supply. https://espace.library.uq.edu. au/view/UQ:504d36d.

Rüttinger, L., Heidegger, J., & Griestop, L. (2015). Solutions for Hope Projects (SfH). https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/dokumente/ umsress-steckbrief_sfh_finale_version.pdf.

Sarfaty, G., 2013. Human Rights Meets Securities Regulation 54, 97.

Schleper, M.C., Blome, C., Stevenson, M., Thürer, M., Tusell, I., 2022. When it's the slaves that pay: in search of a fair due diligence cost distribution in conflict mineral
supply chains. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 164, 102801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102801.

Schöneich, S., Saulich, C., Müller, M., 2023. Traceability and foreign corporate accountability in mineral supply chains. Regul. Gov. 17 (4), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/reg.12527.

Schütte, P., Melcher, F., Gäbler, H.E., Sitnikova, M., Hublitz, M., Goldmann, S., Schink, W., Gawronski, T., Ndikumana, A., & Nziza, L. (2018). The analytical fingerprint (AFP) method and Application process manual version 1.4. https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/CTC/Downloads/AFP_Manual.pdf?_blob=publicat ionFile&v=7.

SEC. (2012). Reporting, L. T. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR PARTS 240 and 249 release No. 34-64976; file No. S7-10-10. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2012/34-67717.pdf.

SER. (2017). Dutch Gold Sector IRBC Agreement on international responsible business conduct of companies in the Netherlands with gold or gold bearing materials in their value chains. https://www.imvoconvenanten.nl/en/gold.

SER. (2023). International RBC Agreement for the metals sector. https://www.imvoconvenanten.nl/en/metals-sector.

Sharma, R., Hurburgh, C., Mosher, G.A., 2021. Developing guidance templates and terminology to support multiple traceability objectives in the grain supply chain. Cereal. Chem. 98 (1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/cche.10388.

Shuai, M., Peng, C., Niu, H., Shao, D., Hou, R., Cai, H., 2022. Recent techniques for the authentication of the geographical origin of tea leaves from camellia sinensis: a review. Food Chem. 374, 131713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131713.

Sinding-Larsen, R., Wellmer, F.W. (Eds.), 2012. Non-Renewable Resource Issues: Geoscientific and Societal Challenges. Springer, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8679-2.

Siqueira-Gay, J., Sánchez, L.E., 2021. The outbreak of illegal gold mining in the Brazilian Amazon boosts deforestation. Reg. Environ. Change 21 (2), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01761-7.

Snyers, A., Houben, R., 2018. Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain—Legal Context and Implications for Financial Crime, Money Laundering and Tax Evasion. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/280969.

SourceCertain. (2024). TSW Trace. https://www.sourceforge.net/technologies/tsw-trace/.

Spherity. (2023). Supply chain compliance with digital product passports. https://www.spherity.com/digital-product-passport.

STRADE (2018). Successful implementation of conflict mineral certification and due diligence schemes and the European Union's role: lessons learned for responsible mineral supply. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/download Public?documentids=080166e5bbfcdd827&appId=PPGMS.

SveMin. (2019). Traceability of Sustainable Metals—A blockchain-based solution. https://www.ivl.se/download/18.3caf9be174fee4974b25ec/1603289493500/Traceability%20of%20sustainable%20metals%20%20slutrapport%20f%C3%B6rstudie%20(002).pdf.

Syed, N.F., Shah, S.W., Trujillo-Rasua, R., Doss, R., 2022. Traceability in supply chains: a cyber security analysis. Comput. Secur. 112, 102536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102536.

Taka, M., 2016. Emerging practice in responsible supply chain management: closed-pipe supply chain of conflict-free minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Busi. Soc. Rev. 121 (1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12080.

Teufel, J., López Hernández, V., Greiter, A., Kampffmeyer, N., Hilbert, I., Eckerstorfer, M., Narendja, F., Heissenberger, A., Simon, S., 2024. Strategies for traceability to prevent unauthorised GMOS (Including NGTs) in the EU: state of the art and possible alternative approaches. Foods 13 (3), 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13030369.

Thakur, M., Donnelly, K.A.M., 2010. Modeling traceability information in soybean value chains. J. Food Eng. 99 (1), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.02.004.

Tian, F., 2016b. An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID & blockchain technology. In: 2016 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSSM.2016.7538424.

TILKAL. (2024). Traceability use cases by industry join the traceability movement. https://www.tilkal.com/use-cases-industry.

Tillväxtanalys. (2019). Spårbarhet och märkning av hållbara metaller och mineral – insatser för ökad transparens, tövårdighet och efterfrågan. https://www.tillvaxtanalys.se/in-english/publications/pm/pm/2019-02-13-traceability-and-labelling-of-sustainable-metals-and-minerals—efforts-to-increase-transparency-credibility-and-demand.html.

Timmer, S., Kaufmann, L., 2017. Conflict minerals traceability – a fuzzy set analysis. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 47 (5), 344–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2016-0026.

Trace4EU Consortium. (2024). Trace4EU (Traceability Reference Architecture Conformant EBSI for the European Union). https://trace4eu.eu/.

Tröster, R., Hiete, M., 2019. Do voluntary sustainability certification schemes in the sector of mineral resources meet stakeholder demands? A multi-criteria decision analysis. Resour. Pol. 63, 101432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101432.

Trummer, P., Ammerer, G., Scherz, M., 2022. Sustainable consumption and production in the extraction and processing of raw materials—Measures sets for achieving SDG target 12.2. Sustainability 14 (17), 10971. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710971.

Tzoulis, I., Andreopoulou, Z., 2013. Emerging traceability technologies as a tool for quality wood trade. Proced. Tech. 8, 606–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.une REC.2013.11.087.

UNECE. (2024). Trade facilitation and E-business (UN/CEFACT). https://unece.org/trade/unecefact.

United Nations Global Compact, & BSR. (2014). A guide to traceability: a practical guide to approach to advance sustainability in global supply chains. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_UNGC_Guide_to_Traceability.pdf.

U.S. Congress. (2010). Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (YPFS documents, Vol. 162). https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=ypfs-documents.

Valcambi. (2023). Green gold. https://www.valcambi.com/accreditations-compliance/green-gold/.

Van Buren, H.J., Schrempf-Stirling, J., Westermann-Behaylo, M., 2021. Business and Human trafficking: a social connection and political responsibility model. Business & Society 60 (2), 341–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319872509.

Van Den Brink, S., Kleijn, R., Tukker, A., Huisman, J., 2019. Approaches to responsible sourcing in mineral supply chains. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.040.

Van Weele, A.J., 2002. Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Analysis, Planning and Practice, 3er edition. Thomson Learning.

Vicol, M., Neilson, J., Hartatri, D.F.S., Cooper, P., 2018. Upgrading for whom? Relationship coffee, value chain interventions and rural development in Indonesia. World Dev. 110, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev2018.05.020.

Vlaskamp, M.C., 2019. The European Union and natural resources that fund armed conflicts: explaining the EU's policy choice for supply chain due-diligence requirements. Coop. Confl. 54 (3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718808314.

Vodenicharova, M.S., 2020. Supply chain study in food industry in Bulgaria. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 48 (9), 921–938. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2019-0080.

Wakenge, C.I., Dijkzeul, D., Vlassenroot, K., 2018. Regulating the old game of smuggling? Coltan mining, trade and reforms in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 56 (3), 497–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X18000332.

Wang, Z., Erasmus, S.W., Dekker, P., Guo, B., Stoorvogel, J.J., van Ruth, S.M., 2020. Linking growing conditions to stable isotope ratios and elemental models of Costa Rican bananas (Musa spp.). Food Res. Int. 129, 108882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108882.

Warashte, Marcus, Brandenburg, R., 2018. Sources of organic cotton from African countries potentials and risks for the apparel industry supply chain. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51 (30), 297–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.11.305.

Wolfram. (2023). Wolfram Bergbau & Hütten AG due diligence report for mineral supplies in year 2022. https://www.wolfram.at/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/WBH-OECD-step-5-report-for-2022.pdf.

World Economic Forum. (2017). Digital Transformation Initiative Mining and metals industry. World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum, & Global Battery Alliance. (2019). A vision for a sustainable battery value chain in 2030 unlocking the full potential to power sustainable development and climate change mitigation. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Vision_for_a_Sustainable_Battery_Value_Chain_in_2030_Report.pdf.

Yang, J., Chen, W., 2023. Unravelling the landscape of global cobalt trade: patterns, robustness, and supply chain security. Resour. Pol. 86, 104277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104277.

Yang, S., Chen, B., Fath, B., 2015. Trans-boundary total suspended particulate matter (TSPM) in urban ecosystems. Ecol. Modell. 318, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmod.2014.10.006.

Young, S.B., 2018. Responsible sourcing of metals: certification approaches for conflict minerals and conflict-free metals. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23 (7), 1429–1447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0932-5.

Young, S.B., Zhe, Y., Dias, G., 2014. Prospects for sustainability certification of metals. Metallurg. Res. Tech. 111 (3), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1051/metal/2014008.

Young, S., Fernandes, S., Wood, M., 2019. Jumping the chain: how downstream manufacturers engage with deep suppliers of conflict minerals. Resources 8 (1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8010026.

Yousefi, S., Mohamadpour Tosarkani, B., 2022. An analytical approach for evaluating the impact of blockchain technology on sustainable supply chain performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 246, 108429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108429.

Zhang, A., Zhong, R.Y., Farooque, M., Kang, K., Venkatesh, V.G., 2020. Blockchain-based life cycle assessment: an implementation framework and system architecture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 152, 104512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104512.

Zhang, X., Du, W., Moshayedi, A.J., 2023. A traceable and revocable multi-authority attribute-based access control scheme for mineral industry data secure storage in blockchain. J. Supercomput. 79 (13), 14743–14779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-023-05222-2.

Zhao, J., Li, A., Jin, X., Pan, L., 2020. Technologies in individual animal identification and meat products traceability. Biotech. Biotech. Equip. 34 (1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2019.1711185.