Blog by Hillary Amster, Chief Operating Officer, the Copper Mark
When I joined the Copper Mark nearly 6 years ago, it was to take the role of Director of Assurance and Impact. I already had experience with assurance and was especially keen to spend more time focusing on the second part of this title: impact.
A big part of what drew me to the Copper Mark was the intent of copper producers to proactively demonstrate how their ESG practices aligned with international standards and their commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. I was excited to enter a space where the industry wanted to get ahead of the legislative curve and adopt a voluntary standard. I sensed a genuine commitment to improve and ensure production was carried out responsibly.
The task of measuring impact is not an easy one, especially when it comes to social impact. Environmental criteria are often associated with quantifiable targets, calculations, clear thresholds, and scientific numbers. Social criteria are not. The impact on people is not an exact science, often relying on anecdotal data or metrics that lack comparability, context, and nuance. It relies on people – their lived experience, opinions, and perspectives – and a willingness to share.
Even more challenging is measuring the social impact of an assurance framework, at least two degrees removed from the affected stakeholders. We wanted to be thoughtful about how to attribute positive or negative impacts to the Copper Mark in a complex ecosystem that relies on global trends, legislation and enforcement, company culture, and a number of other variables.
The Copper Mark’s Monitoring and Evaluation System (M&E System) is our primary mechanism to test our Theory of Change and assess whether we are achieving our intended impact on the ground. When designing the M&E System, guided by the ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Sustainability Systems, we knew we needed to have on-the-ground insights to really understand our social impact.
As such, we recently commissioned our first field study, assigning a third-party to travel on more than one occasion to Antofagasta—a key mining region in Chile and home to several Copper Mark assured sites. The study was designed to provide the deep insights that help us understand the Copper Marks’s impact, particularly in improvements to peoples’ lives. This in-depth study included more than 90 interviews, workshops, and group discussions with stakeholders at production sites and related communities.
“For me, reading the field study report for the first time was humbling and exciting. It felt honest, capturing what we could otherwise only speak to informally. It highlighted where the Copper Mark is in its growth journey with implementable guidance to reach the next level.”
— Hillary Amster, Chief Operating Officer, the Copper Mark
The results were captured in a report that identifies the Copper Mark’s positive impacts as well as areas for improvement and recommendations that will inform how we improve our work as an organisation.
Encouragingly, the study found the Copper Mark has driven progress on the ground, including by:
- Sparking cultural changes that improve risk anticipation, resourcing behind commitments, and openness to stakeholder input — at medium-scale sites particularly
- Supporting evidence-based, auditable practices with documented policies, clearer roles, and stronger data systems
- Establishing a common sustainability language that improves dialogue with regulators, workers, and community stakeholders
- Enhancing market credibility for Chilean production in downstream markets.
The authors also identified some important opportunities for improvement, finding that:
- Visibility, inclusiveness, and depth are major gaps, with workers and community members often being unaware of the Copper Mark or feeling excluded from the assurance process
- At large-scale sites, impact is contingent on leadership continuity and the depth of operational integration
- Weak state presence, centralism, fragmented governance and other external factors are significant barriers to impact.
The report includes several recommendations to enhance the Copper Mark’s credibility and impact. The recommendations suggest ways to embed our assurance framework with a greater emphasis on facilitation, inclusiveness, visibility, and territorial relevance.
For me, reading the field study report for the first time was humbling and exciting. It felt honest, capturing what we could otherwise only speak to informally. It highlighted where the Copper Mark is in its growth journey with implementable guidance to reach the next level.
To quote concluding remarks in the report, “the key to strengthening the Copper Mark lies in evolution, not rupture.” As the Copper Mark approaches an organisational evolution, this study provides us with profound and valuable insights about what is working and the path toward greater impact in the future.
