1002 professionals to apply engineering expertise and governance processes consistently and transparently (Morgenstern et al., 2016; ICMM, 2020). When applied within this boundary, digitalization supports the alignment of circular economy objectives with technical rigor, disciplined risk management, and robust governance throughout the lifecycle of tailings facilities. 5. ALIGNMENT WITH GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS AND GISTM PRINCIPLES The increasing adoption of circular economy strategies in tailings management has reinforced the need for governance structures capable of ensuring that innovation does not compromise safety, accountability, or long‑term risk management. International governance frameworks, particularly the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), provide a structured reference for aligning technical decision‑making with corporate responsibility, transparency, and societal expectations (ICMM, 2020). The GISTM emphasizes a lifecycle‑based approach to tailings management, grounded in clear accountability, technical rigor, and risk‑informed decision‑making. Its principles explicitly require that decisions affecting tailings facilities, whether related to design, operation, modification, or closure—are supported by competent technical evaluation, are transparently documented, and are aligned with the organization’s risk tolerance and governance structures. Circular economy initiatives, which often involve modifications to existing tailings systems, therefore fall directly within the scope of GISTM governance expectations. One of the core challenges in aligning circular tailings strategies with governance frameworks lies in maintaining traceability of decisions and assumptions over time. Reprocessing tailings, reusing materials, or transitioning to alternative disposal technologies typically involves iterative decision‑making, evolving datasets, and changing risk profiles. Without structured mechanisms for documenting the technical basis, assumptions, and responsibilities associated with these decisions, organizations may struggle to demonstrate due diligence and compliance with governance requirements (Morgenstern et al., 2016; Franks et al., 2021). Integrated data and management systems can support alignment with GISTM principles by providing a structured environment that reinforces governance processes rather than substituting them. By enabling the consolidation of multidisciplinary data, these systems support clearer communication between technical teams, operational management, and decision‑makers. This integration facilitates the demonstration that circular economy options have been evaluated using consistent criteria, that associated risks have been identified and assessed, and that decisions are supported by documented technical justification. From a governance perspective, such structured environments contribute to several key GISTM expectations, including: • Clear accountability, by assigning ownership of data, decisions, and actions related to tailings modifications; • Transparency and traceability, by maintaining auditable records of design changes, risk assessments, and decision rationale; • Structured risk management, by supporting lifecycle‑based evaluation of how circular interventions affect tailings performance and failure modes; and • Informed oversight, by enabling senior management and boards to access consistent, decision‑relevant information (ICMM, 2020). It is important to note that alignment with the GISTM does not imply that circular economy strategies are intrinsically required or discouraged by the standard. Rather, the GISTM provides a governance and decision‑making framework within which such strategies can be evaluated responsibly. Circular initiatives that lack technical substantiation, clear accountability, or documented risk assessment are therefore inconsistent with the intent of the standard, regardless of their sustainability objectives.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2