The scope of a Social Aspects of Sustainable Mining and Mine Closure standard will address five themes. Participation –The relevance of Social Aspects of Sustainable Mining and Mine Closure extends across the whole of mine life and beyond from pre-exploration through to post-closure (perhaps in perpetuity). In order to prepare and manage social change through closure the social and cultural impacts of closure must be known. Participatory inclusive involvement of stakeholders is needed early and continually through the life cycle. Impacts and opportunities – Social Aspects of Sustainable Mining and Mine Closure require opportunities as well as risks to be examined early and in an ongoing way. For regional economies to be self-sustaining at closure regional and business economic diversification will need to be considered by stakeholders from the start. Impacts and opportunities for Indigenous and local enterprises should also be considered. The Eden project post-mining alliance describe ‘regeneration’ as the sum of all of the regeneration activities that include socioeconomic aspects and livelihoods. Addressing Social Aspects of Sustainable Mining and Mine Closure enhances the transparency of supply chains through the entire mining life cycle. Stakeholders should be able to contribute to risk and opportunity assessment and mitigation from their perspective. Respecting community identity as tied to places – due to the length of operation, mining becomes part of the community identity so communities must have a say in what is sustainable mining and closure. When engaging with Indigenous peoples, rebuilding and sustaining cultural connections, livelihoods and values are critical. Transition – managing change through life cycle of a mine must include Social Aspects of Sustainable Mining and Mine Closure to complement the biophysical aspects (that are addressed in other standards in this family of standards SC7). Inequities can arise during transition of communities and workforces that can be counteracted by new work, livelihoods and new economies through closure. Land use and land ownership, economic transition and governance are all important elements. Transparency is required when communicating and involving stakeholders in the transition to minimise conflict, and avoiding mixed messages and stresses associated with closure. Resourcing for resilience – Parties need to be effectively resourced to address disparities between companies and its stakeholders planning must ensure communities have the resources they need to participate in mining projects and engagement processes, including access to the same expertise that is available to mining companies. Ensure the organisation has the capability to track social performance. Communities and local suppliers can form part of sustainable supply chains. Excluded: Environmental aspects of mine closure and reclamation as they are addressed by separate standards: Mine Closure and Reclamation Management Planning, ISO 21795-1 and 21795-2 2021 and; WG3 Managing Mining Legacies. While the latter addresses social, economic and environmental dimensions of managing (dormant) mining legacies (abandoned, derelict, orphaned, ownerless mines) that standard is applicable to starting from the end of mining to reverse existing harms that are unsustainable. Stakeholders for this standard include but are not limited to the following. Indigenous land owners: who want to have a say in how cultural values can be conserved and where lost or disturbed, be reinstated. Other land holders: who are impacted by land disturbance by disruptions to livelihoods and amenity causing solastagia “the homesickness you have when you are still at home ” yet need and want to maintain or re-establish connections to places and land uses. Communities: social connections, cultural ties, employees and pride in reclamation and closure and new jobs in a Just Transition (a term introduced in the context of decarbonising economies with closure of coal mines and coal-fired power stations, but here is applied more broadly to social transition for all mines, preparing for, and implementing closure. Catchment managers: who seek to have a say in how water values for community use and livelihoods as well as ecological values important to society are managed. Governments: who are regulatory or tenure issuing agencies and politicians, needing to manage conflicting needs of forward momentum of mining with local disruption to land uses and communities and potential withdrawal of support of a company (social license to mine) due to inadequate management of closure. Governments will seek to smooth social transition for closure through diversified economies, new employment and sustenance of social support networks (health education etc) after mining particularly if the industry has been funding such services while operating and they will cease at mine closure. Mining companies and industry as a whole: who seek to establish and sustain their social license and seek to build constructive relationships and reputation with communities not only before but during and after mining ceases. To gain approval for new mines based on how well they managed social transition for closure in other jurisdictions. Professionals: who are engaged in social impact assessment to understand the specific social impacts and opportunities through social transition for mine closure recognising where and how interventions facilitate this transition and how other stakeholders beyond the boundaries of the organisation need to be engaged in the process