A glass-box index of how completely an asset's environmental & social safeguards are documented and aligned against the DFI frameworks. Every point is a published, reproducible function of Sourced inputs. It is not a performance or ethics rating.
It scores disclosure completeness + framework alignment (which safeguard instruments exist and are Sourced; how the asset maps to IFC PS / AfDB ISS / TNFD / WB ESF). It does not judge whether a mine is "good" or "responsible" — that would require a black-box value judgment Afrimintel does not make. Absence of disclosure is shown as Absent, not scored as a failing grade. The index measures what is on the record, not a verdict.
| Domain | Sourced from |
|---|---|
| 1. Impact assessment (ESIA/EIA) | certified ESIA/EIA reference + date |
| 2. Resettlement (RAP) | resettlement plan / RAP / resettlement EIA |
| 3. Biodiversity / critical habitat | IFC PS6 critical-habitat assessment |
| 4. Water | water-use permit / management plan |
| 5. Community / FPIC / grievance | stakeholder-engagement & grievance mechanism |
| 6. Climate / GHG | GHG disclosure / climate plan |
| 7. Governance / transparency | EITI participation, ownership disclosure |
| 8. Framework alignment mapping | mapped status vs IFC PS / AfDB ISS / TNFD / WB ESF |
Documented (Sourced) — a named instrument exists with a date. Partial — some but not all elements documented, or in progress (the Documented/Partial boundary is an editorial judgment stated per domain, not a precise numeric threshold). Absent — no disclosure found (a data gap, shown openly). No fourth state; nothing imputed.
The headline is a visible, unweighted tally — "N of 8 domains documented" — with the full per-domain breakdown always shown beside it. Every domain counts equally: a deliberate simplification, not a materiality weighting and not a proprietary number — anyone can reproduce it from the Sourced instruments. Two honesty caveats: (1) "Documented" means a disclosure instrument exists, usually operator- or consultant-originated, not that Afrimintel has independently verified the underlying practice is adequate — substantive adequacy is the DD team's call. (2) The index rewards disclosure completeness, so an operator that publishes more scores higher regardless of outcomes. The count is its breakdown, limits included.
vs ESG-scoring platforms (e.g. Digbee): same purpose — a standardised safeguards score DFIs can screen on — but Afrimintel's is glass-box and Sourced, not a proprietary rating.
vs technical due diligence (SRK, DMT): Afrimintel does not perform technical DD or issue Competent Person's Reports. It verifies and normalises the issuer's technical disclosure to a clean, Sourced baseline — a triage layer that feeds the DD team's work, never replaces the CPR.
vs supply-chain tracing: Afrimintel does not do chain-of-custody / physical-flow tracing. It surfaces the upstream jurisdiction & counterparty risk layer (see /screening/ + downstream-risk), not provenance of physical material. DRC/Rwanda/conflict-minerals are data-layer-only.
§13 claims no partnership with IFC, AfDB, TNFD, World Bank, or any framework body; frameworks are cited per their published standards. Worked index: /esg-index/.