External Reviews of ASI
Delivering program rigour and integrity, including through regular revision cycles, is one of ASI’s key strategic foundations. As a global non-profit standard setting and certification organisation, ASI is often subject to reviews of our standards system by external parties (such as civil society organisations, government institutions or companies). These reviews play an important role in providing valuable insights that contribute to our learning, regular Standards Revision cycles and the ongoing improvement of our program.
When ASI receives an external review, we aim to engage in a constructive dialogue and to identify and address areas of improvement. We also strongly encourage stakeholders who are conducting external reviews to follow the ISEAL Alliance ‘Sustainability Benchmarking Good Practice Guide v1.1’. ASI is an ISEAL Code Compliant Member and adheres to the ISEAL Codes of Good Practice for Standards-Setting, Assurance and Impacts. Between 2024-2026, ASI is transitioning to compliance with the new integrated ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Sustainability Systems.
The table below contains external reviews of ASI that have been conducted since 2018. ASI updates this table regularly to include information on external reviews that meet the following criteria:
- Transparency: External reviews clearly outline publicly available methodologies, including data sources, analysis techniques, evaluation criteria and any relevant benchmarks or standards used.
- Independence and Impartiality: Reviewers demonstrate independence from ASI and maintain impartiality throughout the review process to uphold credibility.
- Stakeholder Engagement: Stakeholders conducting reviews provide ASI with an opportunity to respond to their findings, ensuring a fair and balanced assessment.
- Inclusivity of Evidence: ASI’s additional evidence and perspectives are duly considered in the review process, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of practices and performance.
ASI management response summaries and more details
1) Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, BGR)
ASI appreciates the recognition by BGR of our leadership in sustainability among mineral resources initiatives. Although one of the newer initiatives, ASI is proud to have received top marks for governance, supply chain coverage, and standards. As one of only two ISEAL Code Compliant schemes assessed, ASI achieved the highest ratings across all governance criteria, including audit methods, third-party verification, transparency, and complaint handling — a distinction unmatched by any of the other schemes. ASI values BGR’s constructive feedback and is committed to driving sustainability in the global aluminium supply chain.
| Bundesanstalt für Geowissen schaften und Rohstoffe (Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, BGR) | Sustainability Standard Systems for Mineral Resources – A Comparative Overview, 2022 | Independent third-party review* | This study provides an overview of sustainability standard systems and their relevant features for mineral resources. | Scores the maximum “high-level” in seven out of the seven governance criteria assessed (report page 17) | ASI management response ASI news post |
2) International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
ASI acknowledges the importance of continuous improvement in sustainability practices and values IISD’s findings on the evolving landscape of voluntary sustainability initiatives. These insights will help guide ASI’s future strategies, ensuring alignment with sustainable development best practices. ASI is committed to working with stakeholders to boost transparency, improve engagement, and advance responsible mining. The study also recognised ASI’s strong verification processes, and we look forward to ongoing partnerships to drive meaningful change in the aluminium industry.
| International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) | State of Sustainability Initiatives Review: Standards and the Extractives Economy, 2019 | Independent third-party review* | This report examines voluntary sustainability initiatives (VSIs), and their aim to promote sustainable production practices in the mining sector. | CARE analysis:
|
ASI management response |
3) GERMANWATCH
ASI appreciates Germanwatch’s positive feedback on our governance and certification system, acknowledging the recognition of our commitment to transparency, ethical conduct, and sustainability stewardship.
However, ASI disagrees with several of Germanwatch’s claims regarding audits and compliance mechanisms. ASI asserts that, as an ISEAL Code Compliant member independently assessed against the ISEAL Codes of Good Practice for Standard-Setting, Assurance and Impacts, our current practices align with industry standards and legal requirements, with a strong review and oversight process of audit reports. ASI’s Complaints Mechanism enables stakeholders to voice concerns related to standards, certification, and auditor conduct through a third-party portal with multi-language support, emphasising confidentiality and protection against retaliation.
| GERMANWATCH | An Examination of Industry Standards in the Raw Materials Sector, 2022 | Independent third-party review based on public documents only | This paper provides a first assessment of the methodological robustness of the various standards in the raw materials sector.
This study provides some initial points of reference for defining minimum criteria when industry standards are to be used as one of several instruments for the implementation of due diligence obligations. |
Shades green for two of five categories – ‘Standard Governance’, ‘The standard has a certification system’, but ‘overall evaluation’ shades red (report page 66) | ASI management response |
4) Lead the Charge
ASI acknowledges Lead the Charge’s review of assurance and accreditation schemes, especially recognizing ASI’s adherence to ISEAL Code compliance and independent audits, which ensure transparency.
Though disappointed at not being recognized for its multi-stakeholder governance, ASI highlights its inclusive decision-making governance structure, which ensures fair representation across the aluminium industry and civil society, including direct representation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
As the only scheme of those assessed in the report to have been independently evaluated against the ISEAL Codes of Good Practice for Standard-Setting, Assurance, and Impacts, we encourage Lead the Charge to leverage ISEAL’s Good Practice Guide for Benchmarking for its future assessments.
| Lead the Charge | An Assessment of Third-Party Assurance and Accreditation Schemes in the Minerals, Steel and Aluminum Sectors: A tool for automakers and other supply chain stakeholders, 2024 | Independent third-party review based on public documents only | A standalone assessment to facilitate its use as a tool for automakers, and other automotive supply chain stakeholders, in order to make informed decisions regarding their use of these accreditation schemes for the mining sites, smelters, refiners, steel and aluminum plants and other facilities in their supply chains. | 4.75/8 (report page 18) | ASI management response |
SHARE THIS PAGE:
