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

Organizations are resorting to adopting voluntary standards as it helps gain the confidence of the stakeholders by ensuring that the claims made by the organization are credible [38] and address sustainability-related challenges [39]. Voluntary standards in the mining industry emerged around the mid-1990s, and the number has increased exponentially since the 2000s [40]. These standards do not substitute international or national regulations but provide a framework for organizations that improve and maintain their ESG issues by enhancing governance and operational transparency [41]. They are based on international and soft law provisions in social and environmental domains, providing tools that allow producers to directly comply with these obligations and forms of monitoring and enforcement via audit [42]. Currently, a total of 20 key standards have been identified [43] each targeting various objectives and addressing different stages of the supply chain to promote responsible practices. Among these, some are highlighted in Table 1. These standards have been developed by a diverse range of stakeholders, including financial institutions, mineral associations and institutes, private companies, multi-stakeholder collaborations, governments, and governmental entities, as well as organizations focused on sustainability reporting and alternative trade practices.

Voluntary standards have become established practices, aiding organizations in achieving their sustainability objectives, aligning with regulatory requirements, and demonstrating best practices. This is particularly beneficial in areas with weak or imbalanced resource governance [45]. Their continued compliance is verified through third-party auditing, facilitating stakeholder confidence [41].

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

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

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

In response, an aspect that is fast gaining traction is the role of innovation in the mining sector to address some of the existing challenges that the standards face. Technology is helping organizations reduce the environmental impacts of operations with better energy, waste, and water management, improve their production process, and enhance the recovery of minerals [50, 51]. It also contributes to an effective and efficient chain of custody by allowing organizations to track the minerals as they move down the supply chain [52, 53], thereby preserving the provenance of the material [54]. Such technological solutions help to promote transparency, an important component when it comes to gaining the trust of stakeholders and empowering them [51]. Several studies have highlighted the potential benefits of integrating technology [55] and also acknowledged the limitations to its adoption in the mining industry [50, 56]. More importantly, it has been pointed out by the [51] study that voluntary standards have failed to incorporate the requirements needed to address them. As observed in Table 1, not many standards have considered the technology aspect.

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

Full size image

The ESG criteria of the mine exploration and mine development phase are covered by the CERA 4in1 Readiness Standard (CRS). This is followed by the CERA 4in1 Performance Standard (CPS), which is divided into two standards. The CPS upstream covers the on-site responsible operations for facilities in the upstream area of the supply chain and vice versa for CPS downstream. The CERA 4in1 Chain of Custody Standard (CCS) certifies organizations that possess the appropriate management system to ensure responsible operations and sourcing, material handling in line with the chain of custody models, and capable of supporting claims associated with the products. Lastly, the CERA 4in1 Final Product Standard (CFS) enables consumer empowerment by establishing the criteria to label final consumer goods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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