Designing the future of closure governance: what closure practitioners can learn from defined benefit pensions

Authors: McGuinness, F; Keneally, J; Vanotti, T Download Paper Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_41

Cite As:
McGuinness, F, Keneally, J & Vanotti, T 2026, 'Designing the future of closure governance: what closure practitioners can learn from defined benefit pensions', in AB Fourie, G Boggs, J Heyes & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2026: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-11, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_41



Abstract:
Analysis of publicly available financial records shows external financially reported closure or liabilities have nearly doubled for major listed mining companies over the past decade. Although some increase is expected, the consistency, scale and late-life timing of these revisions, primarily driven by upward changes in cost estimates rather than mechanical accounting factors, indicate that traditional closure governance models have struggled to deliver predictable outcomes, avoid balance sheet volatility or enable durable liability exit. While defined benefit pensions and mine closure may appear unrelated, the parallels are instructive. This paper argues that mine closure faces a similar inflection point to pensions – with first-generation governance models undermined by 3 structural weaknesses: misalignment between site-level incentives and corporate objectives, over-reliance on speculative monetisation of closed assets, and limited integration of quantitative risk pricing into closure decision-making. Together, these factors have driven provision growth, financial surprise and reduced trust with investors and regulators. Drawing on pensions experience, the paper presents a funding-based closure model that treats closure as a portfolio financial obligation rather than a site-led compliance exercise. It focuses on 4 elements: redefining the closure mission to focus on liability exit, clear ownership and decisions, counterparty maturity as a constraint, and financial discipline via consistent valuation, risk pricing, and structured funding and risk transfer. In an environment dominated by heightened uncertainty, mining companies face a narrowing window to reset closure governance before markets and investors impose adjustments. By reframing closure as a capital allocation and balance sheet problem – much like the pensions sector – next-generation models can restore predictability, reduce volatility in liabilities and support credible long-term closure outcomes while preserving shareholder value.

References: