Clinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting. 
Clinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting. What was studied?
The article “What enables metals ‘being’ ‘responsible’? An exploratory study on the enabling of organizational identity claims through a new sustainability standard” investigates how voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) facilitate the formation of organizational sustainability identities (OSIs) in the metals industry. Specifically, it explores how a new voluntary sustainability standard referred to as MSS helps organizations claim their metals are “responsible.” Through a five-year longitudinal case study, the authors analyze both the textual structure of the MSS provisions and stakeholder perceptions via interviews. The study employs a dual-method approach: a comparative content analysis of MSS against existing sustainability standards (principle-based, index-based, and reporting-based) and a thematic analysis of stakeholder interviews. The research thus uncovers the structural and social mechanisms that allow a voluntary standard to create legitimacy and identity alignment across the metal value chain, positioning VSS as a mediator in constructing the narrative of “responsible metals.”
Who was studied?
The study focuses on organizations and stakeholders across the metals industry value chain, including upstream miners, midstream processors, and downstream manufacturers and traders. A total of 11 representatives from nine businesses participated in interviews, alongside a representative from the MSS initiative itself. The participants were drawn from European companies involved in both production and supply-chain management, encompassing diverse roles from sustainability officers to senior managers. These organizations were either certified or in the process of certification under the MSS standard. Additionally, the authors conducted a comparative analysis of ten major metal-producing organizations’ sustainability practices and reviewed six pre-existing VSSs later narrowed to three dominant frameworks for benchmarking purposes. This comprehensive participant base allowed the researchers to capture both the technical and discursive shifts that MSS introduced in establishing “responsible metal” as a shared sustainability identity.
Most important findings
| Critical Point | Details |
|---|---|
| 1. Creation of a community of practice | MSS united diverse industry stakeholders—miners, refiners, traders, and manufacturers—into a collective framework that promotes shared sustainability norms. Inspired by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) model, MSS fostered multi-stakeholder governance and industry-specific collaboration to define what constitutes a “responsible metal.” |
| 2. Altered power relations within the value chain | MSS rebalanced influence between upstream (miners) and downstream (manufacturers and brands) actors. Downstream firms gained leverage to demand higher sustainability performance upstream, while upstream entities benefited from reputational association with certified responsible metal. However, alignment with existing industry norms meant real behavioral change remained limited. |
| 3. Introduction of a revised performance rationale | MSS redefined performance expectations from mere legal compliance to continuous improvement and demonstrable outcomes. Unlike prior standards (PBS, IBS, RBS), MSS emphasized “performance perpetuators”—management tools and assessment mechanisms promoting sustained learning and measurable action in areas like human rights, biodiversity, and emissions reduction. |
| 4. Establishment of a discursive platform | MSS functioned as an adaptive forum for redefining sustainability expectations over time. Its iterative revision process allowed ongoing negotiation of evolving social norms, reinforcing the collective understanding of “responsible metal.” This dynamic character supports legitimacy and adaptability in sustainability discourse. |
| 5. Performance rationales across provision types | The study identified five hierarchical performance rationales—premises, incubators, substantiators, perpetuators, and motivators—each representing ascending organizational maturity in sustainability performance. MSS leaned heavily toward “perpetuators,” emphasizing management learning and continuous performance evaluation rather than static compliance. |
| 6. Novel issue coverage | MSS addressed previously neglected themes—such as biodiversity, climate change, human rights, and labor safety—expanding beyond the limited scopes of earlier standards. Over 54% of MSS provisions were unique compared to prior frameworks. |
| 7. Limits of product-level certification | MSS remained a process-oriented rather than product-based certification, meaning it validated responsible practices but not the material traceability of “responsible metal.” This distinction highlights an ongoing gap between organizational process legitimacy and consumer-facing claims. |
Key implications
The study’s implications for the Heavy Metal Tested and Certified (HTMC) program are substantial. Regulators can recognize that voluntary sustainability standards like MSS create legitimacy through community-building and performance discourse rather than direct enforcement. For certification schemes, it underscores the need to integrate multi-stakeholder governance and continuous improvement mechanisms to maintain credibility. Industrially, MSS illustrates how standards can balance upstream and downstream influence, enhancing supply chain accountability. However, the absence of product-level traceability remains a research and regulatory gap that HTMC could address through advanced tracking systems. Practically, certification frameworks should ensure evolving social expectations—on emissions, human rights, and circularity are continually integrated to maintain the relevance and trustworthiness of “responsible” metal claims.
Citation
Imbrogiano J-P, Steiner B, Mori Junior R, Sturman K. What enables metals ‘being’ ‘responsible’? An exploratory study on the enabling of organizational identity claims through a new sustainability standard.Resources Policy. 2023;83:103619. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103619
Heavy metals are high-density elements that accumulate in the body and environment, disrupting biological processes. Lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, nickel, tin, aluminum, and chromium are of greatest concern due to persistence, bioaccumulation, and health risks, making them central to the HMTC program’s safety standards.
