Enforcing Sustainability: Crafting Effective Metrics for the Mining Sector

Building upon the initial progress of our project, we reached an important milestone with our interim presentation. However, there were quite a few reflections and hurdles that we, as a team, had to overcome. In the past month, as we spearheaded our efforts in the first phase of our project—selecting the three criteria to measure the sustainability performance of mining companies—we found ourselves trying to “boil the ocean.” We wanted to address every single issue without clearly knowing which aspect to focus on. 

Drawing from our own professional and academic experiences, it was easy to make arguments for why a criterion should be included. For example, one teammate advocated for water usage because they grew up near mining operations where water concerns affected local communities. Meanwhile, another teammate pushed for emission reduction, as mining is a resource-heavy industry. Our internal discussions were rich and saturated with great ideas, but during our next meeting with the client, it became obvious that we lacked substantial proof to support our arguments.

We soon found ourselves in a tough position. Our method of selecting the criteria lacked proper methodology. We had amazing ideas, but we couldn’t form a coherent narrative. It was tough to realize that we as a team didn’t have all the answers, and it was crucial to sense-check our thinking by consulting with our professor, classmates, and industry experts. Our professor kindly redirected us to conduct literature studies from institutions like the OECD and World Bank to build a stronger foundation for our argument. A pivotal moment came during a class session where we cross-presented our project to another team, which helped us identify significant gaps in our logic.

Another turning point came when we had the opportunity to hear from a guest speaker—an expert in the mining industry—who discussed one of the less talked-about impacts of mining: public health. His insights made us realize that the impacts of mining are far more nuanced than what is typically captured in sustainability reports. Issues like the direct effects on local communities’ health don’t always get packaged neatly into standard metrics, but they are crucial to understanding the full impact of mining operations. This opened our eyes to the importance of considering the broader, more subtle consequences of mining activities, even when they are harder to quantify.

It’s important not to shy away from addressing difficult questions: How can we prove that a company's sustainability performance improvements are tied directly to the reporting framework? Are we merely capturing surface-level improvements, or is there deeper, long-term progress? How can we ensure that the metrics we choose are robust enough to measure meaningful change? By asking these tough questions, we began to focus not just on what is easy to measure, but on what truly matters.

Overcoming Challenges Through Adaptation

After recognizing these issues, we took a step back to reevaluate how to develop a more structured methodology. We decided that creating a feedback loop for our methodology would be essential, allowing us to validate our selected criteria by checking if they were truly material to the mining companies. One aspect of this process I truly appreciated was how each team member took ownership of different parts of the criteria selection. I personally led the 80/20 materiality assessment, and I believe this demonstrated how our team complemented each other’s strengths. By letting team members take ownership, we fostered trust and belief in each other’s abilities and expertise.

With a clearer methodology in place, the criteria selection process became more straightforward. One practice that worked particularly well was consistently aligning our objectives in every client meeting. Before diving into discussions, we would restate our project goals. This helped us maintain focus during meetings and prevented us from getting sidetracked by less critical issues. It also showed both our client and us that we valued everyone’s time by prioritizing key deliverables.

Final Challenge: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Metrics

As we reached the final step in the criteria selection process, we encountered another challenge: how do we effectively integrate both quantitative and qualitative assessments of company performance? Initially, we developed a Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA)-based scoring framework, which involved weighting and aggregating scores from sub-criteria questions. However, after discussion with the client, we realized the need to refine these sub-criteria further and divide them into quantitative and qualitative categories. This distinction required additional research and adjustments, but we appreciated the client’s feedback in helping us fine-tune the scoring system.

Conclusion

Reflecting on this phase of our project, we learned that developing a clear methodology and seeking continuous feedback are crucial to overcoming hurdles in sustainability consulting. By embracing our diverse perspectives, supporting each other’s ownership of tasks, and staying aligned with the project’s objectives, we were able to refine our criteria selection process for measuring mining companies' sustainability performance. Moving forward, we aim to apply this approach as we reach the final deliverable of our project: developing five case studies that demonstrate how sustainability reporting impacts the long-term sustainability progress of mining companies. This project has underscored the importance of adaptability, methodological precision, and the value of structured team collaboration in consulting.