We take stakeholder input seriously, and respond to opportunities for program improvement.
EXTERNAL REVIEWS OF THE COPPER MARK ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK
We know that stakeholders rely on our Assurance Framework as a tool to support due diligence, for regulatory and legislative compliance, and as a credible source of information about the ESG performance of participants.
The Copper Mark Assurance Framework is often subject to external reviews. When we receive these, we aim to engage in a constructive dialogue and to address opportunities for improvement. We encourage stakeholders to consider the ISEAL Alliance Good practices for credible benchmarking when conducting their reviews.
The Copper Mark updates this page at least once per year for external reviews that meet the following criteria:
- The review is based on a publicly available methodology.
- The stakeholder conducting the review has provided the Copper Mark with an opportunity to respond to the findings.
- The stakeholder conducting the review has taken additional evidence into account when provided.
The Copper Mark may add its response to the publication of the review below. We commit to establish, implement and disclose an improvement plan that takes into account the external reviews of the Copper Mark to ensure the continuous improvement of our organization. The improvement plan is published here and will be updated at least once a year.
Organization conducting the review | Title | Type of Review | Description | Score | Link |
OECD / Kumi Consulting | Copper Mark’s Joint Due Diligence Standard ASSESSMENT FOR RECOGNITION BY THE LME’S RESPONSIBLE SOURCING REQUIREMENTS UNDER “TRACK A” | Independent third-party review | Using the OECD's Methodology for the Alignment Assessment of Industry Programmes with the OECD Minerals Guidance (2018) this is a third-party assessement of the Joint Due Diligence Standard for Copper, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, and Zinc and the Copper Mark Assurance Process for alignment with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Sourcing of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. The results are submitted the London Metals Exchange to fulfil the requirements for a "Recognised Alignment-Assessed Standard Track" (Track A). | Overarching due diligence principles: 96% Overall alignment with the five-step framework: 85% | |
GIZ / Kumi Consulting | Sector Dialogue Automotive Industry – Pilot Project Copper | Independent third-party review based on public documents only | Using the Analytical Framework to assess the fitness of Voluntary Sustainability Standards for Human Rights Due Diligence User Guide to review voluntary sustainability schemes. The Framework’s aim is to evaluate Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) against the recommendations as set out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (OECD RBC), and several research studies and relevant tools (see list of references in the Framework). The Framework focuses on the fitness of VSS to include adequate risk management of Human Rights abuses along the entire value chain including all supplier tiers from raw materials extraction to transportation and trading, processing, (semi-)manufacturing, assembly, etc. It is up to the user to use the Framework appropriately and adapt the use to the relevant tiers of the supply chain of relevance to them. | 85% | |
Mercedes Benz | Guidance for Suppliers: Navigating Quality and Effectiveness of Mining and Supply Chain Standards | Second-party review based on public documents only | Company guidance that focuses exclusively on the structural ability of standards to serve as effective due diligence instruments. Content and criteria are therefore excluded from the review. Instead, the report intends to indicate if a standard, through its governance and procedures, is well positioned to identify and mitigate human rights and environmental risks. Mercedes believes that standards can only achieve their full potential if they work transparently, inclusive and independently. | 25/30 | |
The Copper Mark | Self-assessment against the ISEAL Codes of Good Practice | Self-assessment (NOT externally reviewed as code compliant) | Self-assessment by the Copper Mark against the ISEAL Codes of Good Practice. The Copper Mark engages on an annual basis with the ISEAL Alliance to identify gaps and annual improvement plans. However, the Copper Mark has not yet been externally reviewed as code compliant. | Not scored |
We welcome your feedback! Please send any input to info@coppermark.org.