Designing RS Approaches: Major Principles

Abstract

Based on the research and consultation findings of the RE-SOURCING Project, this chapter looks towards the future, reasoning that the knowledge and experience from the past decades need to be now consolidated by agreeing to a framework on how responsible sourcing approaches are developed, improved, and especially implemented. The framework allows decision-makers to step back from the detailed aspects of individual approaches and consolidate what they aim to achieve and how. The chapter framework requires stakeholders to consider a process where duty-bearers ensure policies, processes, and compliance mechanisms exist to deliver the environmental, social, and economic rights, as prioritised by stakeholders who are impacted by the activities within a mineral supply chain. This requires meaningful and inclusive participation and equal access to decision-making; accountability and a level playing field and transparency and access to information. While different stakeholders may take different paths to achieve this, it is essential that they share a common vision for responsible sourcing practices.

The RE-SOURCING Project started with documenting the challenges faced in mineral supply chains and the efforts being made to address them. The State-of-Play reviews of the renewable energy (Kügerl and Tost 2021), e-mobility (Betz et al. 2021), and electronic equipment (González and Schipper 2021) sectors indicated responsible sourcing (RS) challenges across mineral supply chains—from extraction to processing, manufacturing, and recycling. The challenges ranged from negative impacts on the environment to the human rights violations. On the positive side, the level of awareness around these impacts and the advocacy to improve these conditions were also strong. The number of sustainability and RS approaches, whether led by civil society organisations, industry actors, or government legislation, were numerous and diverse. The challenges were being recognised and efforts are being made to address them (Farooki 2020).

In Chap. 2, we noted that the political, social, and economic drivers, by acknowledging the power imbalances within supply chains, are recognising that the weakest/disenfranchised stakeholders in supply chains have little influence on the decisions that impact their lives. Therefore, RS approaches attempt to address these imbalances. In doing this, by creating a similar set of RS standards for all players, they are also creating a level playing field. Awareness building and advocacy; prescribing standards; and assurance mechanisms are some of the pathways they use.

In Chap. 3, we drew lessons from how companies have developed their RS approaches, best practice cases showing how firms have taken ownership of their sustainability commitments; changed their business models; and are involving themselves in the governance and betterment of the disenfranchised actors within their supply chains.

In Chap. 4, we saw the RS trend in the voluntary domain is now being transferred to the mandatory and legislative domain. Governments are responding to the push for RS practices by setting rules for all actors and creating a level playing field. Chapter 5 outlined how the RS approach differs amongst regions, where China and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have their own set of challenges, priorities, and practices for developing and implementing RS approaches.

At this time, the issues and efforts being undertaken by RS approaches continue to evolve and expand. However, an unabated and unstructured increase in scope and number of RS approaches will make the situation challenging (Afolabi et al. 2022). There is already a growing call for alignment and equivalence for RS approaches, from both private and public sectors (Picard et al. 2022). Continued emergence of other RS approaches will create further hurdles with implementation, as companies continue to struggle against myriad reporting requirements (Novisto 2023).

In this chapter, we consider the future for RS approaches, arguing that the knowledge and experience from the past decades need to be now consolidated by agreeing to a framework on how RS approaches are developed, improved, and especially implemented. Such a framework allows us to take a step back from the detailed aspects of individual RS approaches and consider the larger picture and ask the following questions: What are RS approaches aiming to achieve, and is there a common vision? What key elements do RS approaches need to have to achieve this vision? Given the increase in our knowledge and understanding of the RS landscape, what insights can we gain to improve RS approaches? Answering these questions allows us to make observations on what needs to be addressed by current RS practices to become more successful.

We begin by considering a common vision for RS approaches, followed by setting the context under which an RS framework would operate before the introduction of framework on which to build/align RS approaches.

1 Shared Vision Across Responsible Sourcing Approaches

The first question asked by the RE-SOURCING Project was what challenges were being addressed by RS approaches. The most noted challenges, across all stages of the mineral supply chain, included:

• Environmental impacts: Negative impacts on biodiversity, habitats, land pollution, air pollution, and water pollution.

• Social impacts: Negative impact on access to clean water, air and health care for communities, gender bias and rights inequality, human rights violations, land rights violations, labour rights (employed and sub-contracted) violations, lack of safeguards for occupational health and safety and community health.

• Economic impacts: Lack of fair compensation for accessing mineral resources and land-use, lack of fair wages, ignoring national and local industry and services development, creation of mineral enclave economies, lack of support for industrial diversification, corruption and money laundering, and hazardous small-scale and artisanal mining activity.

• Governance challenges: Lack of harmonisation of sustainability requirements, governments unable/unwilling to monitor and reprimand the behaviour of their companies in other jurisdictions, and lack of transparency and data sharing by companies.

The second question asked in the RE-SOURCING Project was what do RS approaches want to achieve? We had identified the challenges, but what was the goal of addressing them? In working with stakeholders in the renewable energy, e-mobility, and electronic equipment sector, the RE-SOURCING Project drafted a vision, outlining an ‘ideal’ supply chain for each of the sectors. The vision(s) is based on two basic concepts: planetary boundaries and strong sustainability. The concept of planetary boundaries consists of nine thresholds within which humanity may act in a safe manner without causing catastrophic environmental change. The nine defined planetary boundaries are climate change, stratospheric ozone, biogeochemical nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle, global freshwater use, land system change, rate of biological diversity loss, chemical pollution, and atmospheric aerosol loading. For the last two boundaries, no suitable threshold has yet been identified (Rockström et al. 2009). The concept of strong sustainability focuses on the substitutability of natural capital, arguing that natural capital cannot be completely substituted by manufactured capital. It follows that certain human actions can entail irreversible consequences (Pelenc and Ballet 2015).

Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 outline the shared vision amongst the three sectors—for sector specific visions and the roadmaps to achieve them, see Kügerl and Tost (2021), Betz et al. (2021), and González and Schipper (2021). The vision provides for specific targets under the environmental, social, and economic pillars and requires international cooperation, a harmonised reporting system, and clear global criteria for responsible and sustainable practices.

Fig. 6.1

RE-SOURCING Project: vision for responsible sourcing across supply chains. Source: Kügerl and Tost (2021); Betz et al. (2021); González and Schipper (2021)

Fig. 6.2

RE-SOURCING Project: vision for responsible sourcing in mining and processing. Source: Kügerl and Tost (2021); Betz et al. (2021); González and Schipper (2021)

Fig. 6.3

RE-SOURCING Project: vision for responsible sourcing in manufacturing. Source: Kügerl and Tost (2021); Betz et al. (2021); González and Schipper (2021)

Fig. 6.4

RE-SOURCING Project: vision for responsible sourcing in recycling. Source: Kügerl and Tost (2021); Betz et al. (2021); González and Schipper (2021)

The targets presented in Figs. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 are either directly stated as objectives by RS approaches or underline their guidelines, standards, and monitoring methodologies. The targets cover a variety of topics and stages of the mineral supply chain. Cohesive RS approaches will be fundamental to achieving these targets. However, ‘more’ RS approaches is not the answer. Rather, attempts to amalgamate existing approaches under a guiding framework, such that the alignment and cohesion of these approaches improves, would provide better results.

Two issues are noted in the literature review of RS approaches: One, there is no clear structural scaffolding offered on which to build an RS approach. Two, there is no clearly agreed definition of what constitutes RS (van den Brink et al. 2019). The Brundtland Report definition for sustainability continues to be most widely referenced in most literature. In other cases, reference is made to the principles being the OECD Due Diligence guidance. The guidance is just that—a guidance and plays a complementary role to a number of other standards (OECD 2018).

There is also a legitimate question to be asked whether presenting an RS definition and structural framework will do more harm to RS implementation, as it can impinge on their ability to be flexible and address issues within their contexts. On the one hand, a definition may spur a ‘tick a box’ mentality, which would not be conducive to achieving the RS Vision. On the other hand, the emergence of a plethora of RS performance and requirements with their differing criteria, applicability, and approaches leave companies and stakeholders struggling to identify what is required of them (PwC 2017).

The RE-SOURCING Project, based on consultations and research, has offered the following definition for RS in mineral supply chains “… a process where duty-bearers ensure policies, processes and compliance mechanisms exist to deliver the environmental, social, and economic rights, as prioritised by stakeholders who are impacted by the activities within a mineral supply chain” (Farooki 2023). The advantages of using a rights-based definition are addressed in the next section.

Given that individual RS approaches find their origins in responding to different political, social, and economic drivers and they utilise a diverse set of pathways to achieve their aims, a single guiding framework is not easy to identify. The framework would be required to be deductive in its construction—based on incorporating elements from existing approaches, rather than an inductive framework—where overarching principles can lead to the development of approaches. A deductive framework would also incorporate success factors from current RS approaches to be shared more widely, while limiting the use of RS pathways/approaches that failed to deliver on their objectives. Given these conditions, the RE-SOURCING Project has attempted to provide such a guiding framework to construct RS approaches.

2 A Framework for Constructing Responsible Sourcing Approaches

2.1 The Consolidation Challenge of Existing Approaches

The RE-SOURCING Project in its consultations and review noted the wide range and scope of RS approaches on (1) the challenges they address, (2) the pathways they choose, (3) the actors they target, (4) the processes they use, and (5) the measurement of success they define.

Challenges: RS approaches identify challenges and negative impacts under environmental, social, economic, and governance categories. Some approaches are focused on environmental impacts alone, whilst others combine environmental and social elements. RS approaches with more ambitious scope attempt to address all four.

Pathways: The pathways that RS approaches use to encourage the implementation of RS practices vary—some focus on advocacy campaigns, others work through multi-stakeholder platforms to create guidelines or more stringent standards. Some focus on creating ESG-related performance metrics and benchmarking to improve company/industry performance. Within these pathways, the transition from voluntary standards to mandatory regulatory and legislative requirements is gaining strength. Therefore, a variety of pathways to RS exist.

Actors: The stakeholders identified for RS practices also vary; some approaches focus on downstream actors and lead firms to enact change across their supply chains; others focusing on individual nodes—such as extractive companies, or recycling companies. Some RS approaches consider the role of policymakers to be a priority, whilst others work with the most vulnerable upstream actors such as local communities and workers. In addition, some RS approaches are aimed at international actors whilst others can be very local and regional.

Process: The prescribed changes in behaviour by RS approaches differ—some require actors to change the process of how they operate: for example, including a Social Licence to Operate as a standard process in mining operations. Others require firms to change their business models; adapting a Life Cycle Assessment approach rather than just focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In general, RS approaches focus on some variation of reducing impact, creating net-zero impact or creating a net-positive impact process.

Measuring success: One of the least well-defined areas is measuring the successful implementation of RS practices. Given the breadth of players and processes involved, this is challenging. Where there is no transparency, achieving self-reporting by companies can be considered successful. Where this self-reporting is based on an ill-defined template and the information cannot be verified, this can lead to accusations of green washing and a failure to implement RS. Some RS approaches take an audit approach, whilst others argue for a continuous monitoring mechanism. Performance is being measured by ESG indices, which are not without controversy.

The term ‘herding cats’ comes to mind, when considering how RS approaches can be consolidated, given the above divergences. However, instead of approaching these individualities as challenges, they should be considered as opportunities—a guiding framework should accommodate rather than disregard the scope covered by RS approaches. Therefore, to establish a guiding framework, the first step would be to identify the context in which such a framework would be used.

2.2 Setting Context for a Responsible Sourcing Framework

The first step is to acknowledge the context in which an RS framework will operate in. The following context setting statements were noted in the RE-SOURCING Project, and we acknowledge that these are not exhaustive:

• 1. Global mineral supply chains are themselves transitioning—moving from traditional models of operations to a new sustainability-inclusive pattern of behaviour. This transition will take time and resources and will move at various speeds for different chains.

• 2. Minerals and metals are a resource for the current and future generations, as well as shared by generations across the Earth. These mineral resources are not limited to virgin raw materials but also include recycled and recovered minerals and metals.

• 3. The benefits from mineral supply chains must be for the benefit of all and not the few—this applies within a region, country, and between countries. This includes ensuring resilience in the benefits—at the first sign of political or economic global turmoil, the benefits should not be sacrificed.

• 4. While sustainability is best illustrated by the 17 UN SDGs, this concept will continue to evolve over time. Sustainability should not be understood as mitigating or annulling negative impacts only but also about creating positive impacts. Given the range of issues addressed under sustainability, the SDGs can have different priorities and meanings in different countries and for different stakeholders.

• 5. Prioritisation must work in hand with harmonisation. Global implementation of RS requires a common understanding of (1) grand societal challenges that can only be jointly addressed and (2) commonly agreed basic frameworks and processes of how to understand and address the different priorities. Without such harmonisation, the RS implementation will struggle with scaling up and left to be managed by individual actors within global value chains.

• 6. Any RS guidelines, standards, or regulations that govern global mineral supply chains need to be clear, reasonable, and practicable. As these chains are a global phenomenon, the reasonability and practicable criteria may differ by country. However, this should not dissuade from establishing a level playing field for all actors.

2.3 Amalgamating Existing Responsible Sourcing Approaches

The second step is to acknowledge the contributions made by the plethora of existing RS approaches, some of which are already moving towards alignment and equivalence. It is practical to use their success factors to establish an RS framework—inventing a new wheel is of little benefit. In reviewing the RS standards and performance expectations for operators in the mineral supply chains, two success factors were noted. The first is that they recognise and address the issue of power dynamics between the strongest and weakest actors in the chain. This power largely stems from economic disparities between companies and investors and those impacted by their activities as well as power imbalances within local stakeholder groups. It also stems from geo-political disparities, largely resulting from the fact that mineral supply chains tend to start in developing countries and end in advanced economies (Degreif 2020).

The second success factor is the approach defining whose needs. Given the global nature of mineral supply chains, the question of whose needs are reflected in RS practices is an essential one. Standards and performance metrics reflect the understanding and priorities of those who set them, even if these emerge from a multi-stakeholder process. The ability to enforce compliance with these principles is similarly linked to the capacities and jurisdiction of the standard setters. While there is general agreement for working towards a sustainable future, the pathways to this future are differently perceived across global stakeholder groups.

Given the context and principles of identification of power within chains, the next stage is identifying an existing framework principle that could be adapted for constructing RS frameworks.

2.4 Adapting a Rights-Based Approach

The sustainability discourse linking human actions with its impact on environment has been ongoing since the 1940s (ADB 2012). A major change in this policy discourse occurred in 1992 at the Earth Summit (UN n.d.), where the focus shifted from a ‘needs’ to a ‘rights-based’ approach (Redclift 2005). A Rights-Based Approach (RBA) considers “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and should be free to live their chosen life, thrive socially and economically, and participate in public affairs” (European Commission n.d.). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals reflect the realisation of these rights. Using a rights-based principle would allow future RS approaches being drafted for flexibility on issues, actors, and processes. It would not exclude or preclude existing sustainability concepts, such as planetary boundary.

Keeping the requirements and limitations discussed previously, using an RBA allows us to move from content-focused RS standards and addresses the power dynamics within the mineral supply chains. It highlights the duties of those who hold power to deliver the rights of those who do not. Given different states of empowerment and access to legal processes amongst rights-holders in different countries, the power dynamics between duty-bearers and rights-holders differ across the world. Therefore, the rights to be addressed by RS approaches should reflect the priorities and (empowerment) circumstances of the rights-holders. It remains for the duty-bearers and rights-holders to agree on pathways to delivering these rights.

2.5 Processes Under Rights-Based Approach

The aim of an RS framework is to provide a common threshold for pathways and processes that must be included by organisations and policymakers, when outlining RS standards, guidelines, best practices, and regulations. The RS framework proposes the following underlying principles as part of any RS approach:

• 1. Meaningful and inclusive participation and equal access to decision-making.

• 2. Accountability and the rule of law for all.

• 3. Transparency and access to information, supported by disaggregated data.

2.6 Actors Under a Rights-Based Approach

The RBA distinguishes three entities within its framework: duty-bearers, rights-holders, and facilitators.

Duty-bearers are identified as those actors in supply chains that carry the obligation to deliver rights. These include actors in position of power such as extraction companies, smelters and refineries, manufacturers, and recyclers. A secondary set of duty-bearers include financial investors and governments. The RE-SOURCING Project has identified these as the two most influential entities that determine RS practices in mineral supply chains. Their obligations include protecting, promoting, respecting, and redressing violations of the rights of those impacted by their actions.

The rights-holders within mineral supply chains are those impacted by the actions of the duty-bearers. These right-holders include impacted local communities and citizens, and those directly and through sub-contracts employed in mineral supply chains. We also include consumers within the rights-holder groups, as their consumption behaviour is impacted by the business and policy approaches undertaken by the duty-bearers. Depending on where they are located, the power available to rights-holders will differ. In regions of strong governance and legislation, they will have access to routes that allow them to influence decision-making. In regions of weak governance, the size of disenfranchised rights-holders will be larger.

The facilitators form a third category that acknowledges the crucial role civil society organisations (CSOs) and international development organisations (such as the OECD, World Bank, GIZ) play in RS approaches and practice. These actors build capacity for both the rights-holders and duty-bearers. This includes their crucial contributions and role in research, monitoring, communicating, advocating, evaluating, reporting, certifying, and ensuring remedies are addressed by the duty-bearers.

3 A Framework to Construct Responsible Sourcing Approaches

Taking these components, Fig. 6.5 provides an overview of the RBA framework for mineral supply chains, indicating the interaction between duty-bearers and rights-holders and the use of RS practices to manage the impacts and benefits from mineral supply chains.

Fig. 6.5

Rights-based approach to responsible sourcing in mineral supply chains

Companies, governments, and investors are identified as duty-bearers, whilst communities, consumers, and workers are designated as rights-holders. These categories are not exhaustive and additional actors can be added to both. Similarly, civil society and international development institutes are involved in the capacity development of both the duty-bearers and the rights-holders. Capacity development is used here as an all-encompassing term. It is meant to include awareness raising and advocacy, as well as monitoring and evaluation exercises. It encourages CSOs to educate and campaign for better practices from companies as well as support local communities to rally for their rights.

Together, all three groups impact responsible practices that safeguard and promote the environmental, social, and economic rights of the disenfranchised. All these relationships are nested within the right to good governance, as the latter informs and supports all the other actors and processes in the RS ecosystem.

Based on this framework, the RE-SOURCING Project defined RS in mineral supply chains as a process where duty-bearers ensure policies, processes, and compliance mechanisms exist to deliver the environmental, social, and economic rights, as prioritised by stakeholders who are impacted by the activities within a mineral supply chain.

The definition encapsulates two factors: First, it assigns responsibility for the delivery of responsible practices to actors, including commitment and compliance (good governance) elements. Second, it supports the interdependence between environmental, social, and economic rights by indicating compliance is required with all three rights, caveated by the requirement that these should reflect the priorities of the rights-holders and not the duty-bearers.

It would be advantageous for stakeholders to have a common definition of RS as well as an RS framework to draft RS approaches. This allows for the same set of principles and parameters to be followed, regardless of the stage of the supply chain or the geographical location of the operations. Alignment would be easier, where the underlying framework is comparable.

Those developing and refining their RS approaches can use the framework as guidance in outlining their objectives, processes, and achievements. It provides for a scaffolding on which to build the details of their approaches, considering the power dynamics between the duty-bearers and the rights-holders. This underlying framework would be reflected in:

• National legislation and policy documents

• Worldwide corporate policy and behaviour

• National and international investor approach

• Consumer behaviour

• Civil society behaviour

3.1 Room for Diverse Pathways

Given the different priorities and challenges faced by different regions, the RS framework allows for diverse pathways to be undertaken. RS approaches, under a rights-based framework, can reflect the lead stakeholder priorities. The evolution of RS standards has also been noted to be ‘Northern’ centric, with many standards evolving from groups based in OECD countries. This is not to suggest that developing countries have not been invited to the consultation table, but that often the priorities set in these standards reflect Northern geo-politics and socio-economic cultures. For example, where standards are informed by largely European actors, these standards will include a focus on the use of green/renewable energy, while Asian standards will see a stronger weight on reducing their direct emissions to the environment or prioritise the improvement of socio-economic standards. Differences in regional priorities should be accepted, with each region supported in pursuing its own RS agenda. However, a rights-based RS framework is adaptable to incorporate this agenda and still allow for alignment to take place.

A rights-based framework allows for the coordination (and perhaps consolidation) of various RS approaches, without losing their unique features. For example, some guidelines are general and refer to respecting human rights across the entire supply chain. Others can be very specific, such as those focused on community engagement protocols and requirements for meeting a social licence to operate. Instead of a hodgepodge of objectives and approaches, their intended impacts—the safeguarding or rights—can be used to align processes.

This also holds true where the subject matter of these standards varies in coverage and depth. By coverage, we refer to the aspects of environment, economics, social, and governance indicators they cover. By depth, we refer to applicability to primary actors, tier-1, tier-2, and so on. As each set of standards has a primary audience for its implementation, depending on the choice of the former, the coverage and depth of the standard varies. While this was essential when RS standards were beginning to evolve, there is now the need to systematise this coverage. Using a rights-based approach allows these standards to be amalgamated under a uniformed approach.

With the uptake of RS practices by different actors, at different paces, some companies and countries are more advanced than others. Existing and future RS approaches will need to be flexible to ensure late starters are able to catch up with frontier actors. Having a similar underlying framework can provide a pathway, where the speed of travel is different, but the pathway and destination are the same.

4 Where Do We Go from Here?

The RE-SOURCING Project started with documenting the sustainability challenges within mineral supply chains, shedding light on the complexities and interdependence between environmental, social, and economic impacts and the role of governance. The project also noted increasing awareness and advocacy from civil society actors, governments, and industry alliances to address these challenges and push for net-positive impacts from the operations of mineral supply chains.

The diverse RS approaches encompass various pathways, ranging from collaborative alliances and partnerships to address the collective challenges, to efforts aimed at mitigating knowledge disparities and enhancing transparency through data sharing. These endeavours collectively strive to enhance RS practices in mineral supply chains. The project identified a common narrative within these approaches: addressing the power imbalance between actors in a supply chain and focusing/supporting disenfranchised groups to have influence and participate in the decision-making process for issues that impact them.

Pursuing international consensus in the form of collaboration and a common definition serves an important purpose; it helps creating a level playing field for RS compliant companies and countries that could otherwise be economically worse off compared to their non-compliant competitors. Furthermore, artisanal and small-scale mining, which is a high-risk category for RS firms, is threatened to be marginalised and excluded from supply chains. RS practices need not be limited to operationalisation by large firms alone. Medium-scale and small businesses also need to have the capacity to meet such standards.

An international consensus on RS can also unlock the creation of enabling frameworks for firms, sectors, and industries. While larger firms may have the management and financial resources to pursue RS practices, medium and smaller firms may require more support in the uptake of these strategies. Aiming for a level playing field for businesses ensures that meaningful progress is made towards the global sustainability agenda, without compromising the competitiveness of firms.

Given how standards are implemented across value chains, actors in different countries (particularly non-EU countries), may require support in understanding and meeting such RS standards. Thus, there is a need for a better understanding of the power relations, associated institutions, and value systems that facilitate or block RS in the sustainability agenda. Much progress has been made on this front, but more remains to be done.

While there are many interesting observations and recommendations from the four years of the RE-SOURCING Project, the four key findings are:

• The necessity of a globally accepted framework for RS approaches, to align standards, guidelines, and legislation. A common framework addresses the issues of fragmentation, whilst setting out clear guidance and target for companies and governments for RS practices.

• To level the playing field for responsible business practices, both incentives and mandatory requirements are important. The level playing field is the result of many actions (from waste and recycling regulations to labour rights standards) coming together. The overlap in actions in the environmental, social, and economic spheres is necessary to enable a level playing field.

• The importance of information exchange and collaboration among stakeholders to foster RS practices cannot be over emphasised. Peer learning and alliances remain a strong tool for scaling up of RS practices.

• The significance in integrating RS discussions into international political forums for global impact is high. While there are different pathways and different priorities for global regions, the sustainable development objective is common amongst all.

To achieve the visions set out by RS, policymakers, industry actors, and CSOs need to foster a collaborative effort among all stakeholders to drive RS forward, acknowledging that success depends on collective action. They need to build upon actions that are already in progress, demonstrating the commitment to advancing RS. This can include targeted actions and commitments towards supporting the creation of a circular economy and decreased resource consumption. Acknowledging the urgency and crucialness of meeting the Paris Agreement (2015) goals to ensure sustainable development remains a possibility for everyone. Companies need to acknowledge the impact of their actions and understand their role in delivering social rights through responsible production, which includes their obligations for responsible procurement. International cooperation amongst governments, businesses, and CSOs is the only way to ensure a level playing field can be established in mineral supply chains.

The RS challenge is not simple to address. However, the RE-SOURCING Project findings emphasise that it is accomplishable through agreed common RS objectives and acknowledging there are different pathways to achieve them.