Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative (CMSI)
What is the CMSI?
The Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative (CMSI) is a collaboration between the Copper Mark, ICMM, Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and World Gold Council (WGC) to consolidate their different responsible mining standards into one Consolidated Standard.
The vision is for a sustainable society, enabled by the responsible production, sourcing, and recycling of metals and minerals. Through this Initiative, we are aiming to simplify the current mining standards landscape and promote continual improvement of environmental, social and governance practices along individual metals’ value chains.
Why are the CMSI Partners doing this work?
Responsible mining standards play an important role in giving stakeholders confidence that metals and minerals are being produced responsibly. Over the last 20 years we have seen a plethora of these standards being developed, including those of the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative’s (CMSI) Partners.
The CMSI responds to clear signals received from investors, civil society, customers, policy makers and mining companies that the existing standards landscape has become too complex – and inconsistent for stakeholders seeking assurances that metals and minerals are being responsibly produced and too challenging and distracting for operators.
Our vision is for a sustainable society, enabled by the responsible production, sourcing, and recycling of metals and minerals. Through this Initiative, we are aiming to simplify the current mining standards landscape and promote continual improvement of environmental, social and governance practices along individual metals’ value chains.
What are the core components of the CMSI?
The core components of the CMSI include the Governance Model (published September 2025), Consolidated Standard, Assurance Process, and Claims Policy.
How will this proposed Consolidated Standard differ from existing standards?
We aim to simplify the existing landscape by consolidating the attributes of the World Gold Council’s Responsible Gold Mining Principles (RGMPs), ICMM’s Mining Principles, MAC’s TSM and the Copper Mark Risk Readiness Assessment Criteria Guide (jointly owned with the Responsible Minerals Initiative) into one standard. An important feature of the Consolidated Standard is its applicability to any facility, anywhere in the world that is committed to responsible practices.
The Consolidated Standard builds on the best attributes of the Partners’ individual standards. The decision to develop an approach based on three performance levels – Towards Good Practice, Good Practice and Leading Practice, reflects a move away from the existing standards and has required careful consideration. In many cases, setting out expected performance at each of these levels has built on the current requirements of the existing standards. In addition, the approach to assurance and governance builds on existing standards to put forward a new approach that reflects current expectations from stakeholders.
Once finalised, the Consolidated Standard is expected to be used by existing members and participants of our four organisations. Over time, this broad adoption would give the Consolidated Standard the widest coverage of any voluntary mining standard to date with implementation anticipated to include almost 100 mining companies across approximately 600 facilities in almost 60 countries.
Who is involved in this process?
The Partners — ICMM, WGC, MAC and the Copper Mark. Experts within these organisations are leading the drafting of the Consolidated Standard. The four Partners are governed by their four respective Boards.
The process has been guided by two advisory groups: one comprising industry representatives, and the other bringing together a diverse range of voices from stakeholders, including NGOs, investors, Indigenous Peoples, downstream customers and multilateral organisations. A full list of participants in the Industry Advisory Group (IAG) and Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) can be found here
What is the role of the IAG and SAG?
The role of the IAG and SAG is to guide the CMSI Partners in the development of the Consolidated Standard, Assurance Process, and Claims Policy. The groups also provided input on the Governance Model, which was published in September 2025. They have met regularly and provided extensive input at different stages. While these two groups are structurally separate, functionally they are integrated and have met together.
Members of the IAG are participating in the Initiative as representatives of their organisations, while members of the SAG are participating in their individual capacities as experts in their field. A full list of participants can be found here. The Terms of Reference for the groups can be found here.
Does this mean these advisory group members have endorsed this process or the resulting Consolidated Standard?
No. Participation in the IAG or SAG reflects the desire to shape the process and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the outcomes.
Has the CMSI conducted public consultations?
Guided by ISEAL’s Code of Good Practice, the CMSI process included two rounds of broad public consultation which have now concluded.
The first public consultation was from 16 October to 16 December 2024. Learn more about the first public consultation here.
The final public consultation second was held from 8 October to 17 November 2025. Learn more about the final public consultation here.
I submitted feedback during a public consultation. How will my feedback be used?
Feedback received during the public consultations will help shape the final deliverables.
After each round of public consultation, a third party catalogued the feedback submitted and developed consultation reports (which are now published) that lays out the methodology, key statistics on who responded and a summary of feedback received including issues or concerns raised. In addition, for full transparency, the individual consultation responses are publicly available with the permission of those respondents.
Learn more about the first public consultation here and the final public consultation here.
When will the Consolidated Standard, Assurance Process and Claims Policy be finalised?
Over the coming months, the CMSI Partners will consider all contributions made during the final public consultation, as we advance the Consolidated Standard, Assurance Process, and Claims Policy towards finalisation.
The CMSI Partners are working to ensure the initiative reflects the variety of perspectives, and the updated documents will be reviewed by the SAG and IAG for further consideration and adaptation.
The Copper Mark’s evolved Board of Directors will be solely responsible for approving the final Consolidated Standard, Assurance Process, and Claims Policy. We expect finalisation in 2026.
When will the evolved Copper Mark Board of Directors be established?
The recruitment process for the Board is complete and the Chair Designate, Daniel Ortega-Pacheco, has been appointed. We expect the remaining 16 appointments to be announced in Q3 2026.
Why is the Copper Mark evolving?
The Copper Mark is evolving to scale its trusted system of credible standards and robust assurance to drive responsible metals and minerals production and sourcing across the global value chain.
What began as an assurance framework for copper production is evolving into a coherent system that supports consistent expectations and verified performance across commodities, geographies, and the entire value chain.
As a core component of the Copper Mark’s evolved mission is to take ownership and manage implementation of the Consolidated Standard developed through the CMSI.
Why is the evolved Copper Mark taking ownership of the Consolidated Standard?
During the early stages of CMSI, it was agreed by the Partners that the Copper Mark had the experience, capability, and credibility to own the Consolidated Standard and ensure it will be an effective vehicle to drive responsible production at scale. The Copper Mark has successfully implemented its leading assurance framework for responsible copper, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc production at 130+ sites across the globe — including sites that produce about 40% of global mined copper.
The evolved Copper Mark will implement the CMSI Governance Model and adopt a new name and brand befitting is growing mission to make responsible practices the industry norm. Learn more about the Copper Mark’s evolution here.
What will happen to the CMSI after the Consolidated Standard is finalised?
After finalisation and approval by the evolved Copper Mark Board of Directors, the new Consolidated Standard will be owned and implemented by the evolved Copper Mark organisation. The CMSI will then be formally concluded.
Technical questions
Can the Standard be applied to small-cap companies?
Yes. The draft Standard comprises of 24 Performance Areas with requirements grouped into three distinct levels: Towards Good Practice, Good Practice and Leading Practice. Towards Good Practice is a starting point for conformance with minimum industry standards on which a Facility can build on and improve their performance over time. It is an ‘entry point’ for Facilities who are committed to transparency and responsible mining practices and will need additional time or resources to reach Good Practice. The draft Standard is designed to provide a framework for companies to follow, supporting companies of all sizes who are interested in improving their performance and transparency. Importantly, Towards Good Practice Level is not a destination and there are no Performance Claims or “certifications” at Towards Good Practice Level.
Can the Standard be applied to companies focusing on exploration?
Some Performance Areas (PAs) are especially relevant to exploration, notably PA4 on New Projects, Expansions and Resettlement. However, almost all the Performance Areas have aspects that are relevant to Facilities involved in exploration, as they set out the practices that responsible mining companies ought to follow at any stage of the mining life cycle. Failure to establish sound practices with respect to Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity, local communities or many other Performance Areas from the outset runs contrary to establishing a basis for responsible mining practices. However, the systems and processes in place during exploration are unlikely to be sufficiently mature to demonstrate conformance to Good Practice Level, nor may the resources be available to do so. Additionally, the Assurance Process is built to be applied at operational Facilities and assurance could only take place once the Facility is up and running.
What level of assurance will be required?
The proposed Assurance Process clearly lays out the detailed expectations of Assurance Providers. At the completion of the Assurance Process, the Assurance Provider will prepare an Assurance Report that clearly presents the Facility level assured ratings for each Performance Area included in the scope of the assurance and identify any gaps, at the requirement level, that would need to be met to achieve the Good Practice level of performance. The Assurance Report must be produced using the template in the Assurance Process. The website of the Consolidated Standard will include the assured ratings as well as the Assurance Report for each Facility that has undergone assurance.
Facilities must demonstrate continued performance through a full re-assessment every three years. At the three-year anniversary of the previous commencement date (i.e. the date on which the Facility and the Secretariat entered into an agreement), the process is presumed to start again.
Please refer to the draft Assurance Process for details here.
Will the Standard apply at the Facility or the corporate level?
The Standard is designed for implementation principally at the Facility level. However, there are also requirements aimed at the corporate level (Performance Area 1: Corporate Requirements, and subsections of Performance Area 8: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Performance Area 20: Climate Change). It is acceptable to implement a corporate level requirement at the Facility level (and vice-versa) as long as the requirement is fully met (and can be verified by an Assurance Provider). An example of a corporate requirement which could be completed at the Facility level is the disclosure of mineral revenues (Performance Area 1, requirement 1.3). Many of the corporate-level requirements, however, cannot be fully implemented at the Facility level and therefore require implementation at the corporate level.
What stages of the mine life cycle will it apply to?
The Standard is designed for implementation principally during the operational phase of a mine life. There are important Performance Areas and individual requirements throughout the Standard, however, which require implementation at the pre-operational phase of a mine life (including Performance Area 4: New Projects, Expansions and Resettlement, Performance Area 12: Stakeholder Engagement, Performance Area 14: Indigenous Peoples, etc.). While some requirements in these Performance Areas may not apply if the Facility has passed the relevant stage of the mine life (i.e. they cannot be applied retrospectively), the Standard includes requirements covering the same topics (such as managing ongoing adverse impacts) during the operational phase. It should also be noted that a number of the requirements in Performance Area 24: Closure are to be applied during the operational phase of the mine (or earlier).
The expectation is that once the final Consolidated Standard is approved by the evolved Copper Mark Board (see Governance Model) the requirements relating to new projects would apply to any Facility that pursues conformance with the Standard, if the construction phase for the Facility commenced following Board approval of the Standard. The intent is that the requirements in the Standard related to new projects (e.g. Performance Area 4: New Projects, Expansions and Resettlement) are in scope for one assurance cycle, after which the ‘new project’ becomes an existing Facility and these requirements are no longer applicable.
What Performance Areas are applicable?
Before specifying detailed requirements in all 24 Performance Areas, there is a description of the applicability of that Performance Area, and how the requirements connect to other Performance Areas. Some Performance Areas are not applicable due to the specific context, prevailing conditions, demographic or operational characteristics of the Facility. For example:
- Absence of a specific activity at a Facility (e.g. PA 4: New Projects, Expansions and Resettlement, sub-section 2 Land Acquisition and Resettlement would not be applicable to a Facility which has not undertaken resettlement).
- Absence of specific conditions or potentially affected stakeholders and rights-holders at a Facility (e.g. PA 14: Indigenous Peoples would not apply if Indigenous Peoples were verifiably not present or affected by the Facility’s operations).
- Presence of technological or operational characteristics at a Facility (e.g. PA 23: Circular Economy, sub-section 2 Additional Requirements for Smelters would only apply to Facilities with smelting operations).
- Stage of the project lifecycle at a Facility (e.g. PA 4: New Projects, Expansions and Resettlement, sub-section 1 Environmental and Social Impact Assessments includes pre-operational requirements that may not apply to an existing, long-established operational mine that has passed that stage).
Certain Performance Areas also have applicability “screens” which require the Facility to assess whether certain conditions are met to determine applicability. For example, Performance Area 11: Security Management. In all cases, the rationale for the Facility’s determination of non-applicability will need to be verified by the Assurance Provider, based on evidence provided by (and discussions with) the Facility during the Assurance Process, and publicly disclosed in the assurance report.
Throughout the Consolidated Standard, certain requirements may include phrases such as “if applicable,” “where applicable,” “if necessary” or “as appropriate.” These phrases signify that the requirement is not universal but depends on the specific context, prevailing conditions, demographic or operational characteristics of the individual Facility. It is the Facility’s responsibility to clearly determine and document the rationale for why a particular Performance Area, sub-section or requirement is deemed “not applicable”. This determination must be based on objective evidence, relevant data and a clear understanding of the requirement’s intent.
Is there a Glossary or Interpretive Guidance?
Words and phrases which are italicised in the Standard are included in the Glossary and Interpretive Guidance section at the end of each Performance Area. Page 11 includes several key overarching terms to assist with the review of the Standard.
How would companies report performance against the Standard?
The ‘scores’ for the Standard would be reported at the Performance Area Level and sub-sections of applicable performance levels as per the proposed reporting template (see the Assurance Process for details). There will also be an aggregate single “score” provided for a Facility, which is the percentage of towards good practice and good practice requirements met by a Facility of the total applicable requirements of the Consolidated Standard. Care should be taken when considering the aggregate score as a high aggregate score may nonetheless conceal weak performance in some areas.
