The RMI is committed to engaging external stakeholders in the development and oversight of the RMI's programs, audit requirements, and guidance documents. The RMI will post any items for public review and comment on this webpage and will discuss these items on its quarterly multi-stakeholder call, member plenary call and in other forums.
Risk Readiness Revision 2021-2022
Access the documents here:
Interested stakeholders are encouraged to review the RRA Version Comparison document for an overview of major changes.
The first round public consultation on the draft Criteria and Criteria Guide has been closed. Feedback and recommendations will inform the revision process. A second consultation round will be opened in Q4 2022.
The RRA is used by over 320 mining, smelting, refining, and manufacturing sites across multiple metals including Aluminum, Alumina, Bauxite, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Graphite, Iron Ore, Lead, Lithium, Mica, Molybdenum, Nickel, Palladium, Platinum, Rare Earth Elements, Silver, Steel, Tantalum, Tin, Tungsten, and Zinc
The RRA is both a set of criteria for responsible production and a tool for companies to communicate their environmental, social and governance practices. Its main uses are:
- As voluntary self-assessment and self-reporting tool for minerals and metals producers and processors participating in the RMI’s Responsible Minerals Assurance Process.
- As the foundation of the RMI’s Environmental, Social, and Governance Standard for Mineral Supply Chains; and
- As the foundation of the Copper Mark Criteria for Responsible Production against which sites are independently assessed during the Copper Mark Assurance Process.
The methodology of the RRA is available on the RMI website here.
The last revision of the RRA Criteria was finalized in 2019. In this second revision, the RMI and the Copper Mark will work together to achieve the following main objectives:
- Ensure the recognition and acceptance of the RRA as a credible set of criteria for responsible mineral production practices by key stakeholder groups, namely mineral producers, refiners, smelters or other producers of a finished metal product, supply chain companies, investors and civil society organizations actively involved in addressing social and environmental impacts of mineral production.
- Respond to findings of benchmarking exercises with other voluntary standards applicable to mining, smelting and / or refining operations to adjust the RRA to:
- Ensure full coverage of relevant issue areas,
- Provide more clarity and prescription on the scope of the criteria, and / or
- Strengthen criteria where appropriate to ensure these continue to reflect the core expectations formalized in leading voluntary standards in this field as well as of key stakeholder groups.
- Clarify requirements for the implementation and assurance of the RRA Criteria through accompanying Criteria Guide aimed at both implementing companies and assessors.
An approximate timeline for the project is included below. All timings are indicative only and subject to change.
Initial revision of the RRA Criteria and Criteria Guide
June – September 2021
Launch of the Technical Committee
Revision Cycle 2 of the RRA Criteria and Criteria Guide based on input from the Technical Committee
September 2021 – March 2022
Revision Cycle 3 of the RRA Criteria and Criteria Guide based on stakeholder consultations
July – October 2022
Revision Cycle 4 of the RRA Criteria and Criteria Guide based on stakeholder consultations
December 2022 – March 2023
The RMI and the Copper Mark have developed a detailed stakeholder engagement plan, available here.
The RMI and the Copper Mark plan two public consultations on the draft RRA Criteria and Criteria guide as well as four dedicated workshops with key stakeholder groups. Detailed information on these opportunities to participate in the RRA revision process will be published on this website.
In order to ensure the feedback is constructive, please consider the following guidelines:
- Provide input into either the methodology, criteria, or format;
- Provide overarching comments and / or specific points for consideration but avoid “red-lining”;
- Avoid recommending changes where previously adopted language from international or other schemes’ standards / frameworks is directly referenced or used; and
Please provide contact information to allow us to follow up with any questions.