4
• Struggle to see the big picture and appropriately allo-
cate funding to the most value-adding initiatives,
• Struggle to forecast events accurately because one
function is blind to the events or requirements of
other functions,
• Be almost immune to change displaying high levels
of organisational inertia, and
• Be nervous about signing off on public disclosures
due to all the points listed above.
• Clearly these business functions are inherently
symbiotic, yet the current structures, operational
processes and data structures inhibit leverage and
mutual benefit.
There is a need to change this organisational paradigm,
and at the same time avoid reinventing the entire enter-
prise. The needs of people and of the business can both
be satisfied when the siloed nature of the business is iden-
tified and removed as a cause of inefficiency, duplication,
and poor governance. This does not necessarily entail re-
organizing people, but rather adopting a holistic systems
approach centered around a common understanding and
usage of interrelated data (a data ontology), which has the
following features:
• Access to information is available to everyone who
needs it,
• Spatial data is available to everyone from the same
source system and is easily visualized and contextual-
ized relative to other data types,
• The relationships between people, physical entities
and business processes are encoded into the system –
roles and responsibilities are mapped to the informa-
tion and work that needs to be done,
• The obligations the company has made to govern-
ment, regulators and other stakeholders are intrinsi-
cally linked to spatial data objects and to the people
who need to do work related to those obligations,
• Milestone dates and events automatically trigger the
right work at the right time such that the company
never fails to meet its obligations, and
• Digital workflows manage data capture events, vali-
dation and review, presentation of information and
approval of content. Multilevel approvals are catered
for, whether in series or in parallel. These work-
flows form the backbone of governance because they
record who did what, when, and who ultimately had
accountability and responsibility.
There are clear and substantial benefits to be gained
from a holistic systems approach, which are detailed in the
next section.
BENEFITS OF A HOLISTIC SYSTEMS
APPROACH
A holistic systems approach to Resource Governance pro-
vides companies with a more comprehensive understand-
ing that can drive meaningful change, comprehensively
manage risk, achieve sustainable growth, and contribute
positively to the environment and society. Companies that
adopt a holistic systems approach to Resource Governance
will see a clear picture of their impacts, can embed sustain-
ability in the overall business strategy, are able to optimize
resource allocation, and become confidently transparent.
With a holistic systems approach, stakeholder engagement
and risk management are more effective and lead to the
fostering of long-term value creation.
Integrated Decision-making
Firstly, it is critical to recognize that Resource Governance
issues are interconnected and will have overlapping impacts.
With a holistic systems approach, companies can fully
consider the interdependencies and trade-offs in environ-
mental, social, and mineral governance factors. If organisa-
tional functions can integrate the decisionmaking process,
comprehensive solutions can be identified across multiple
dimensions simultaneously.
Avoiding Reputational Damage
Two recent events suggest that the ‘federated’ organisational
model seen in many mining companies is not sustainably
meeting society’s expectations of Resource Governance
performance:
• Tailings dam failures leading to the release of the
Global Industry Standard for Tailings Management
(GISTM, 2020), and
• The Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into
the destruction of significant heritage sites at Juukan
Gorge (AFP, 2021).
The ‘federated’ model is one where multiple business
units operate independently or semiindependently of a
central corporate entity. Some are grouped by region or
commodity but maintain local decision-making rights.
However, when disasters occur, it hits all levels of the orga-
nization, with damage to reputation being felt most keenly
by the corporate entity (e.g., WWF, 2020).
There are variations and degrees of control from the
corporate centre, ranging from very little control outside
financial reporting and policy setting to higher levels of
control where the corporate centre maintains teams of
technical experts that work in parallel or oversee opera-
tional functions to ensure they are meeting corporate,
• Struggle to see the big picture and appropriately allo-
cate funding to the most value-adding initiatives,
• Struggle to forecast events accurately because one
function is blind to the events or requirements of
other functions,
• Be almost immune to change displaying high levels
of organisational inertia, and
• Be nervous about signing off on public disclosures
due to all the points listed above.
• Clearly these business functions are inherently
symbiotic, yet the current structures, operational
processes and data structures inhibit leverage and
mutual benefit.
There is a need to change this organisational paradigm,
and at the same time avoid reinventing the entire enter-
prise. The needs of people and of the business can both
be satisfied when the siloed nature of the business is iden-
tified and removed as a cause of inefficiency, duplication,
and poor governance. This does not necessarily entail re-
organizing people, but rather adopting a holistic systems
approach centered around a common understanding and
usage of interrelated data (a data ontology), which has the
following features:
• Access to information is available to everyone who
needs it,
• Spatial data is available to everyone from the same
source system and is easily visualized and contextual-
ized relative to other data types,
• The relationships between people, physical entities
and business processes are encoded into the system –
roles and responsibilities are mapped to the informa-
tion and work that needs to be done,
• The obligations the company has made to govern-
ment, regulators and other stakeholders are intrinsi-
cally linked to spatial data objects and to the people
who need to do work related to those obligations,
• Milestone dates and events automatically trigger the
right work at the right time such that the company
never fails to meet its obligations, and
• Digital workflows manage data capture events, vali-
dation and review, presentation of information and
approval of content. Multilevel approvals are catered
for, whether in series or in parallel. These work-
flows form the backbone of governance because they
record who did what, when, and who ultimately had
accountability and responsibility.
There are clear and substantial benefits to be gained
from a holistic systems approach, which are detailed in the
next section.
BENEFITS OF A HOLISTIC SYSTEMS
APPROACH
A holistic systems approach to Resource Governance pro-
vides companies with a more comprehensive understand-
ing that can drive meaningful change, comprehensively
manage risk, achieve sustainable growth, and contribute
positively to the environment and society. Companies that
adopt a holistic systems approach to Resource Governance
will see a clear picture of their impacts, can embed sustain-
ability in the overall business strategy, are able to optimize
resource allocation, and become confidently transparent.
With a holistic systems approach, stakeholder engagement
and risk management are more effective and lead to the
fostering of long-term value creation.
Integrated Decision-making
Firstly, it is critical to recognize that Resource Governance
issues are interconnected and will have overlapping impacts.
With a holistic systems approach, companies can fully
consider the interdependencies and trade-offs in environ-
mental, social, and mineral governance factors. If organisa-
tional functions can integrate the decisionmaking process,
comprehensive solutions can be identified across multiple
dimensions simultaneously.
Avoiding Reputational Damage
Two recent events suggest that the ‘federated’ organisational
model seen in many mining companies is not sustainably
meeting society’s expectations of Resource Governance
performance:
• Tailings dam failures leading to the release of the
Global Industry Standard for Tailings Management
(GISTM, 2020), and
• The Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into
the destruction of significant heritage sites at Juukan
Gorge (AFP, 2021).
The ‘federated’ model is one where multiple business
units operate independently or semiindependently of a
central corporate entity. Some are grouped by region or
commodity but maintain local decision-making rights.
However, when disasters occur, it hits all levels of the orga-
nization, with damage to reputation being felt most keenly
by the corporate entity (e.g., WWF, 2020).
There are variations and degrees of control from the
corporate centre, ranging from very little control outside
financial reporting and policy setting to higher levels of
control where the corporate centre maintains teams of
technical experts that work in parallel or oversee opera-
tional functions to ensure they are meeting corporate,