Transparency around mine tailings management globally remains significantly underdeveloped in academic research, despite its central role in recent industry failures and escalating regulatory scrutiny, according to a new study.
The paper – by Rafaela Shinobe Massignan and Luis Enrique Sánchez, of the Department of Mining and Petroleum Engineering at the University of São Paulo – identifies tailings as a critical but insufficiently examined area within broader mining transparency debates.
Analysing 945 peer-reviewed articles, the authors conclude that while disclosure requirements have expanded, research has not kept pace with governance and accountability challenges associated with tailings storage facilities (TSFs).
The study finds that, although tailings-related disclosures have increased following major dam failures, there is a lack of detailed research into how transparency translates into stakeholder engagement or risk mitigation.
In particular, the authors highlight three gaps:
- minimal analysis of how affected communities participate in tailings risk management
- limited scrutiny of transparency in disaster response and recovery processes
- few practical proposals to improve disclosure systems beyond technical monitoring tools
Notably, no studies were identified that examine public participation in tailings failure or disaster risk management, an omission the authors flag as material given the sector’s recent safety record.
The findings suggest a lag between industry events and academic focus. Catastrophic failures such as those in Brazil triggered new global standards and disclosure initiatives, including international databases of tailings facilities. However, these developments are only partially reflected in the literature.
The study notes that recent frameworks require “unprecedented” levels of disclosure on tailings management, yet research remains concentrated on reporting outputs rather than governance effectiveness or community oversight.
More broadly, the authors argue that existing transparency mechanisms –particularly company-led disclosures – face persistent credibility issues. Information may be incomplete, delayed or selectively presented, limiting its usefulness for regulators and communities.
In the context of tailings, this raises a specific concern: risk information may be available but not actionable, particularly where stakeholders lack the institutional capacity to challenge operators or enforce standards.
The study situates tailings transparency within a broader shift driven by the energy transition, which is increasing both the volume of mine waste and the proximity of operations to sensitive environments and communities.
Without stronger transparency mechanisms, defined not only by disclosure but by participation and accountability, the authors suggest that the sector risks repeating past failures under new demand pressures.
While the review identifies six main research areas across mining transparency –including environmental disclosure, financial accountability and community participation – tailings does not emerge as a standalone focus.
Instead, it appears as a secondary theme, primarily within environmental reporting, reinforcing the conclusion that its governance and societal dimensions remain under-analysed.
For Massignan and Sánchez, this imbalance points to a clear research priority: shifting attention from reporting frameworks to the real-world effectiveness of transparency in preventing high-impact failures.
The study, A systematic literature review on transparency in the mining industry reveals many under-researched topics, published in The Extractive Industries and Society, Volume 26, 2026.
