Get in touch

Jania Rozas

Senior Consultant

Get in touch

Andrew Britton

CEO

Get in touch

CASE STUDIES

Mining company benchmarked against Copper Mark Criterion 10

Copper cathodes loaded on a train in a copper mine ready to be delivered in Chile

SUMMARY: This case study explains how a copper mining company in Peru can assess and improve supply chain due diligence against Copper Mark Criterion 10. It shows how gap analysis of ESG systems, procurement processes and stakeholder engagement can identify weaknesses in risk prioritisation and execution, supporting more consistent management of environmental and social risks across goods and service supply chains.

Kumi was commissioned by a copper mining company with assets in Peru, to undertake a gap analysis of its existing management system against Criterion 10 (responsible supply chains) of the Copper Mark standard. Criterion 10 requires sites to conduct due diligence on their direct and indirect business partners (part 1) and mineral supply chains (part 2).

As the company had no mineral suppliers, our gap analysis focused on all services and goods purchased by the company. We supported the client in identifying gaps in its current due diligence management system and provided recommendations for improvement.

Our process

  • We examined the company’s ESG management systems, reviewing sustainability reports, policies, procedures, and other written documents provided by the client.
  • We interviewed corporate staff to learn more about the management of ESG issues in the supply chain.
  • We compared results with the Copper Mark criterion 10 using the Risk Readiness Assessment (RRA) criteria.

Our recommendations

Our report provided actionable recommendations for the client to strengthen procedures and ensure consistent application. Following our recommendations will enable the client to identify and mitigate ESG risks within the supply chain and remediate adverse impacts.

Some of the recommended actions included prioritising ESG issues based on their potential severity and likelihood of adverse impacts, evaluating the effectiveness of measures to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts and engaging with adversely affected stakeholders during audits of high-risk suppliers.

Mining company benchmarked against Copper Mark Criterion 10

The outcome

Our evaluation process found that the mining company had a good basis for due diligence in the supply chain, but there were gaps in the scope, prioritisation of ESG issues, and execution of procedures.

Our analysis report helped the client’s management team prioritise their activity with practical and actionable recommendations and a roadmap to close the gaps identified. The company is now well on track to be aligned with Copper Mark Criterion 10 requirements and achieve certification in 2025.

Frequently asked questions

  • What is Copper Mark Criterion 10 about?

    Criterion 10 focuses on responsible sourcing and human rights due diligence at site and corporate level.

  • Why benchmark instead of going straight for certification?

    Benchmarking helps companies understand gaps and readiness before committing resources to certification.

  • Does benchmarking replace due diligence?

    No. It is a diagnostic tool that informs where due diligence needs strengthening.

  • What do companies usually discover through benchmarking?

    Common findings include gaps in risk assessment, supplier engagement, and grievance processes.

  • Is this only relevant for copper producers?

    No. Many mining companies use Criterion 10 principles to strengthen responsible sourcing across commodities.

  • How does this help with regulatory readiness?

    Benchmarking provides evidence of proactive gap analysis and prioritisation, which regulators value.

Jania Rozas

Senior Consultant

Contact Jania