RBA Conformity Schemes

Criterion: Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement

Version 1.0.0 | Status: Active
UN conformity topic code:

Identification and meaningful engagement of affected stakeholders throughout the Facility lifecycle, including Indigenous Peoples, with documented plans and confidentiality protections.

Full Description

MSG05 Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement

Standard Section: 6.5 Category: Management Systems Scheme: Responsible Minerals Assurance Process (RMAP) Standard Version: 2.0 for Piloting (effective April 30, 2025)

Overview

Identification and meaningful engagement of affected stakeholders throughout the Facility lifecycle, including Indigenous Peoples, with documented plans and confidentiality protections.

Requirements

The Facility shall:

  • 6.5.1 Identify and map potentially affected stakeholders and their legitimate representatives, including their ties to aspects such as land, water, biodiversity, and cultural heritage sites.
  • 6.5.2 Identify individuals and groups that might be at greater risks of adverse impact due to marginalization or vulnerability, including Indigenous Peoples and marginalized populations.
  • 6.5.3 Consult with relevant Indigenous Peoples' organizations or bodies, if they exist, and external experts to identify any Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation (uncontacted peoples).
  • 6.5.4 Establish and maintain a process to evaluate the needs and expectations of affected stakeholders, who may be affected by the Facility's ESG risks or who may affect the desired outcomes of the management system(s). This includes evaluation of the ESG risks and impacts that may affect stakeholders in alignment with Section 6.6. This process shall be designed to identify those stakeholder needs and expectations that are linked to compliance obligations or voluntary commitments, in accordance with this Standard.
  • 6.5.5 Establish a documented stakeholder engagement plan to ensure inclusive and meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders early, frequently and collaboratively throughout the Facility's life cycle. The engagement plan shall be designed to ensure that comprehensive and transparent information is provided for consultations in alignment with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance on Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector.
  • 6.5.6 Engagement shall be conducted in good faith by the Facility, by means of ensuring stakeholders are provided the opportunity to participate and provide feedback on the ESG issues relevant to them and maintain documented evidence of stakeholder participation.
  • 6.5.7 Engage with affected stakeholders when determining risks, impacts, action plans, monitoring indicators, and remediation measures, with respect to the criteria identified in Sections 7 to 9 below, using methods that are inclusive, accessible, understandable, and culturally appropriate.
  • 6.5.8 Hold a separate engagement process for Indigenous Peoples where relevant, with respect for their right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).
  • 6.5.9 Utilize third-party experts where it would be more likely to achieve meaningful stakeholder engagement. The decision to appoint such experts shall be documented.
  • 6.5.10 Ensure confidentiality and prevent retaliation against stakeholders participating in the engagement process.
  • 6.5.11 Be responsive to stakeholder views, communications, and feedback on ESG issues and maintain documented evidence of the Facility's responses as appropriate.
  • 6.5.12 Communicate agreed upon ESG commitments to stakeholders, determined through the engagement process, including when FPIC is applicable.
  • 6.5.13 Provide documented evidence of the stakeholders the Facility engaged with during the reporting period and the actions taken to integrate the outcomes of engagement sessions into the Facility's risk management practices. This information may be integrated into the Facility's public ESG discloses as described in Section 6.10.

Source: RMI Facility Standard for Social, Environmental, OHS and Governance Risks, Version 2.0 for Piloting (April 2025), Section 6.5

Profiles using this criterion

Responsible Minerals Assurance Process

Conformity Alignment

Meets

Pass: Yes
Definition: "Facility has identified and mapped all potentially affected stakeholders including vulnerable and marginalized groups, established and implemented a documented stakeholder engagement plan, maintained documented evidence of meaningful engagement, ensured confidentiality and non-retaliation, and responded to stakeholder feedback. Where Indigenous Peoples are affected, a separate FPIC process has been conducted."

Partially Meets

Pass: No
Definition: "Stakeholder mapping and engagement plan exist but engagement is incomplete: e.g., plan is documented but engagement is infrequent or not inclusive of all affected groups, FPIC process has not been initiated where required, documentation of engagement outcomes is insufficient, or stakeholder feedback has not been incorporated."
Remediation: 180 days

Does Not Meet

Pass: No
Definition: "No stakeholder identification or mapping, no documented engagement plan, or no documented evidence of meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders."
Remediation: 90 days

Priority

Pass: No
Definition: "Priority findings are not raised against this criterion. Stakeholder engagement gaps are assessed under Does not Meet."
Remediation: 30 days

Not Applicable

Pass: Yes
Definition: "The FPIC and separate Indigenous Peoples engagement requirements are not applicable where the ESG risk assessment confirms that no Indigenous Peoples are affected by the facility's operations."

Not Able To Assess

Pass: No
Definition: "The assessor was unable to access stakeholder mapping records, engagement plans, engagement evidence, or interview community representatives to verify the process."

Change Log

1.0.0 (2026-06-24)

Initial release.