What the framework is - and is not

It is for mine owners, boards, executive teams, general managers and sustainability, risk and assurance leaders who need an independent, evidence-backed view of how a mine is managed and where to improve first.

It applies to surface and underground operations, with dedicated pathways for each. Operations with both surface and underground activity are assessed on both pathways, keeping results distinct.

It reviews eight management dimensions - governance, legal and regulatory management, safety, mine planning and operational controls, tailings and geotechnical integrity, environment and closure, social and community performance, and evidence and improvement.

An audit typically tests conformance against a fixed standard. This is a maturity diagnostic: it assesses how reliably controls are governed, implemented, evidenced and improved, and it converts findings into a prioritised improvement roadmap.

No. It does not certify or accredit a mine, system, person or facility, and it is not an official government rating. Maturity levels are advisory descriptors, not stars, seals or approvals.

No. Legal conclusions require qualified, jurisdiction-specific review. The framework assesses management capability and does not issue a compliance opinion.

It is mine-specific and evidence-led. It examines whether critical controls actually work in the field, rather than scoring the presence of policies or documents against a generic ESG template.

Yes, where practical. A representative site walkthrough and workforce engagement are part of validating whether controls operate as designed. Observations are time- and place-specific samples, not proof of universal conformance.

Typically mine plans, permits and licence conditions, risk and critical-control records, incident and monitoring data, and prior audit and action-tracking records. A controlled, indexed request is issued at the start.

A maturity baseline typically takes six to eight weeks, depending on mine scale, access, evidence readiness and specialist requirements. Timelines are indicative, not guaranteed.

Missing applicable evidence is not treated as Not Applicable. It reduces confidence and may cap or withhold the result. Contradictory evidence is investigated rather than resolved in favour of the most convenient source.

Questions and dimensions are scored against defined criteria, then moderated independently. The arithmetic result is diagnostic - it can be capped or withheld by confidence, coverage and critical-control gates.

No. Critical-control gates mean a high average cannot override a material critical-control failure. A serious unverified control can cap the level at Foundational or Developing, or cause the result to be withheld.

Confidence - High, Medium, Low or None - describes the strength of the assessment basis, not the quality of the mine. Strong controls with weak evidence still carry lower confidence.

Coverage describes how much of the applicable question set was answered with usable responses and evidence. Low coverage limits the conclusions that can responsibly be drawn.

Information is handled on a need-to-know basis with secure exchange, controlled retention and data minimisation. Only necessary information is collected, and it is redacted or de-identified wherever possible.

Findings are prepared to support informed decisions by the stated recipients, within the agreed scope and reliance terms. Any wider distribution or third-party reliance is governed by the engagement terms.

Reassessment verifies that improvement actions were implemented and that controls are sustainably effective, measured against a frozen baseline. Completing documents alone does not demonstrate improvement.

The practice is being established. Discovery discussions are welcome to understand mine context, priorities and likely scope. Working identity and selected details remain subject to final verification.