Governance Assurance & Capital Stewardship
Our purpose
Governing ownership in a market that has fundamentally changed
- Home
- > Who we are
- > Our purpose
Ownership under intensified accountability
Execution can be delegated. Accountability cannot.
Across mining, infrastructure and long-life assets, the conditions under which ownership is exercised have changed materially. Sustained capital discipline, expanding regulatory and ESG obligations, and increasing delivery complexity now require owners to demonstrate not only outcomes, but how decisions were made, governed and defended at the point risk and capital were accepted. As execution is delegated across multiple parties and jurisdictions, accountability remains with owners, increasing the need for transparent, evidence-based governance at decision points where exposure is crystallised and long-term obligations are set.
Transparency through governed decisions
Global assurance and regulatory frameworks increasingly reinforce that transparency is no longer achieved through reporting outcomes alone. Owners are expected to demonstrate how judgement was exercised, trade-offs were considered and authority was applied at critical decision points, with ESG, capital and strategic intent governed together and traceable over time across the asset lifecycle.
Delegating execution with confidence
While execution models have continued to evolve and specialise, accountability has not transferred with them. Decisions taken across feasibility, delivery, operations and closure carry enduring financial, regulatory and social consequences, requiring independent governance assurance to preserve transparency, defensibility and owner authority as execution is delegated across the asset lifecycle.
How ownership is now exercised
Where owner exposure is created
Accountability has become more explicit
Transparency and ESG expectations are binding
Governance approaches must now operate at scale
Governance now spans accountability and execution
Why TacminMadini exists
Where owner exposure is created
Where owner exposure is created
Decision points concentrate risk under modern conditions
Why it matters | Under sustained capital discipline, increasingly standardised ESG disclosure expectations (with uneven adoption and periodic regulatory simplification), and reduced tolerance for error, owner exposure is created earlier and more decisively than before. Decisions are increasingly made across multiple parties, jurisdictions and interfaces, often before outcomes are fully visible. Once approved, these decisions establish binding commitments that can limit flexibility and recovery options as conditions evolve. |
What must be governed | Decision authority, interface ownership and escalation pathways must be governed explicitly at the point exposure is created, and applied consistently across assets, contractors and operating contexts to ensure accountability remains clear as delivery progresses. |
Outcome | Exposure is managed deliberately rather than accumulated by default, preserving accountability, flexibility and informed optionality throughout delivery. |
Accountability has become more explicit
Accountability has become more explicit
Ownership obligations persist regardless of delivery structure
Why it matters | While execution can be delegated, accountability for financial performance, environmental outcomes, social licence and regulatory compliance remains with owners. Boards, financiers, insurers and governments increasingly expect this accountability to be demonstrable, traceable and defensible across the full asset lifecycle, independent of how delivery and operations are structured. |
What must be governed | Decision authority, access to information and accountability must remain aligned at the point decisions are made, rather than reconstructed after outcomes are fixed or positions have hardened. |
Outcome | Clear, defensible accountability that withstands scrutiny across jurisdictions and over the life of the asset, supporting confidence among regulators, capital providers and stakeholders. |
Transparency and ESG expectations are binding
Transparency and ESG expectations are binding
Disclosure requires governed decisions, not retrospective explanation
Why it matters | ESG obligations now directly influence access to capital, regulatory standing and community confidence. Owners are increasingly expected to demonstrate how ESG risks were identified, decisions governed and obligations discharged, rather than relying on retrospective reporting of outcomes once commitments are already fixed. |
What must be governed | Environmental, social and governance obligations must be embedded within owner decision governance from feasibility through delivery, operations, closure and land transition, ensuring decisions remain traceable, auditable and aligned with long-term asset intent. |
Outcome | Transparent, defensible ESG outcomes that support capital confidence, regulatory compliance and long-term asset value. |
Governance approaches must now operate at scale
Governance approaches must now operate at scale
Implicit controls are less effective under heightened scrutiny
Why it matters | Governance that was previously supported by internal experience, informal controls and organisational depth is increasingly challenged by the speed, complexity and scrutiny under which owners now operate. As decisions progress across multiple parties and jurisdictions, reliance on implicit governance reduces visibility and limits the ability to intervene once commitments are made. |
What must be governed | Governance must operate forward of exposure, at the point where capital, risk and accountability are committed, rather than relying primarily on retrospective review, assurance or reconstruction after outcomes are fixed. |
Outcome | Earlier intervention, preserved flexibility and sustained owner control as conditions change. |
Governance now spans accountability and execution
Governance now spans accountability and execution
Aligning retained accountability with delegated delivery
Why it matters | As owners retain accountability while delivery parties control execution, governance must operate across organisational and contractual boundaries. Under heightened scrutiny and concentrated exposure at decision points, reliance on implicit or informal arrangements can reduce clarity around authority, escalation and assurance, particularly as delivery momentum increases. |
What must be governed | The owner–executor relationship itself must be governed explicitly, including decision rights, interface ownership, escalation pathways and assurance, independent of delivery and advisory incentives. |
Outcome | Consistent owner control, reduced conflict and outcomes that are deliberate, predictable and aligned with approved intent. |
Why TacminMadini exists
Why TacminMadini exists
Independent governance assurance for complex, long-life assets
Why it matters | Owners of complex, long-life assets are accountable for delivering predictable financial performance, credible ESG outcomes, regulatory confidence and enduring asset value over extended timeframes. Under conditions of increasing scale, scrutiny and delivery complexity, these outcomes are shaped less by execution effort alone and more by whether decisions are made with clarity, governed with discipline and sustained as delivery structures evolve. |
What is enabled | TacminMadini enables disciplined ownership by providing independent governance assurance over critical decisions, delivery interfaces and ownership obligations, separate from delivery, contracting and advisory incentives. This strengthens decision integrity, preserves authority and ensures accountability remains clear and traceable as projects progress from early commitment through delivery, operation and transition. |
Outcome | Our governance assurance mandates strengthen the evidence and discipline that boards, auditors and regulators now expect to see at decision points across the asset lifecycle. |
Let’s talk about ownership, risk and control
A focused discussion on how decisions are governed before exposure is created.