How credible are mining corporations' sustainability reports? a critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and metals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Member companies of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) have committed to publish externally assured sustainability reports. This paper evaluates the quality of assurance provided to those companies by analyzing the extent to which a sample of their assurance statements met minimum recommended contents. It also seeks to understand the implications of the recently launched ICMM Assurance Procedure. Nine out of the sixteen companies hired assurance in the period analyzed. Their statements mirrored several quality problems highlighted in previous studies. The extensive scope limitations and diversity of verification criteria employed by assurors indicate that mining companies had significant control over the practice. The Assurance Procedure might bring more consistency and breadth to the verification process. The extent to which it will contribute to increased trust in reported information will depend on several factors, including how assurors may interpret the procedure's requirements. Directions for further research are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.416 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".