Mine closure transparency and disclosure: An open-source evaluation of financial, technical, and social reporting

Abstract

This study evaluates the transparency of mine closure disclosures across public reports, with a focus on identifying gaps in communication related to financial, technical, and social obligations, in Brazil. Using a quantitative content analysis of 16 documents (2019–2023) and six reporting frameworks from four global mining companies, a binary classification system (0/1) and weighted scoring protocol were applied to 15 criteria spanning two domains: Report Content (e.g., data verification, update frequency) and Sector-Specific Risks (e.g., financial provisioning, post-closure stability). Key findings reveal that mandatory reports (e.g., SEC Form 20-F) outperformed voluntary frameworks (e.g., GRI) in financial transparency, with 67 % compliance versus 22 % application rate), yet both lacked technical rigor, with only 33 % addressing physical-chemical stability risks. Mining-specific frameworks (ICMM, IRMA) achieved 85 % application rate to technical criteria, highlighting their efficacy in mitigating sector risks like tailings failures. Conversely, 78 % of reports omitted enforceable community transition plans, exacerbating social dislocation problems. The study advocates for regulatory reforms to mandate technical disclosures (e.g., geotechnical stability audits) in capital market filings and urges integration of ICMM/IRMA standards into broad ESG frameworks. These steps are critical to aligning disclosure practices with the mining industry's environmental, financial, and social risk profile. This study aligns with disclosure legitimacy theory, which posits that firms disclose information to legitimize operations in high-risk sectors, and impression management theory, which explains the prioritization of aspirational narratives in voluntary frameworks. By evaluating how these theories manifest in mine closure reporting, the research advances transparency discourse in extractive industries.