⏩ Issue 21: Paladin Energy

Ah, reporting season. The FY26 reports are landing and we are starting to see what the new Australian mandatory sustainability reporting regime actually produces on the page.

Last week we looked at where in its 2025 Sustainability Report Alcoa disclosed its most important land commitment, and found it in the community section rather than the environment section.

This week, I’ve been reading Paladin Energy’s shiny new FY26 Annual Report which contains two separate sustainability sections - one for the mandatory climate disclosures required under Australia’s reporting regime, and one for the remaining information which isn’t (yet) governed by law.

This week's question: how much can a company rely on an approval once its in place?

As a side note, if you’re working through mandatory climate disclosures for your company, flick to pg 127 of Paladin’s report to see how they’re doing it. I think the information is presented really well.

— Bronwyn

Source: Paladin Energy Annual Report 2026 (224pp) · Published 26 August 2026 · Reporting period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 · Voluntary Sustainability Report at pages 41 to 66, prepared with reference to GRI and SASB · Mandatory Sustainability Report at pages 127 to 148, prepared under AASB S2 · Limited assurance review of specified climate disclosures by PwC.

Paladin Energy is a Perth-based uranium producer. It runs the Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia and is trying to develop a second mine, Patterson Lake South, in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. This month, Paladin signed a benefits agreement with the Birch Narrows Dene Nation, one of the Indigenous groups whose land the Canadian project sits on.

The same week, in the Pilbara, both the Western Australian Government and the Yindjibarndi people lodged appeals against the Federal Court's $150 million compensation ruling over Fortescue's Solomon mine, a mine that was approved and built without an agreement.

A word before the quote. The Métis are one of Canada's three recognised Indigenous peoples. The Métis Nation of Saskatchewan (MN-S) is their representative body in that province, and one of eight Indigenous nations Paladin lists as holding rights or traditional use over the project area.

Three facts on one page, in order. In February the province approved the project's environmental impact statement, the main environmental permit. Six weeks later one of the eight Indigenous nations went to court, asking a judge to set that approval aside because the government had not consulted them properly, and to stop Paladin acting on it in the meantime. US$19.2 million, roughly AUD$29 million, was spent in the year on development and permitting. Paladin says it has consulted the group for years and is defending the case.

The challenge is about a claim that the government skipped a step. In Canada the duty to consult sits with the Crown. In Australia it sits with the State, through the future act process under the Native Title Act. In both countries the company holds the permit, the government carries the duty, and when the duty is questioned it is the company's schedule and money on the line. Fortescue found that out over 14 years at Solomon. Paladin is finding it out before they commence operations.

Paladin's annual report contains two sustainability reports. The new Australian climate law requires the first: a climate report, prepared under the standard AASB S2, signed by the directors and, here, reviewed by PwC. Page 149 lists what PwC checked: climate governance, climate risks and opportunities, and Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

Everything else goes in the second report. Safety, water, communities, Indigenous rights. Paladin calls it voluntary on the first page, because it is. The information simply isn’t required, yet the eight Indigenous nations, the three benefits agreements signed so far, the monitoring commitments made to those nations etc…all in the voluntary report. And that half is shrinking. Last year's standalone sustainability report was 56 pages. This year's voluntary section is 26, with the detail moved to the website.

The reason I’m highlighting it is because the international standards came as a pair, one for all material sustainability issues and one for climate. Australia made the climate standard mandatory and left the other voluntary. So the law's definition of what investors need to know begins and ends with carbon. Paladin's growth project depends on the consent of Indigenous nations and is in court over consultation. That is the material issue for this company, wouldn’t you say?

So, how much can a company rely on an approval once it has one?

The answer? Only as much as it can rely on the consultation behind it.

Australia’s mandatory regime has decided that climate is what investors need to know about. For a company whose project is so dependent on Indigenous consent (as is so often the case), that might be a mistake.

Materiality is much broader than climate alone. The state of relationships and proper consultation is fundamental to the success or otherwise of any resources project, no matter where it is and no matter who you are. Having the right people in the room is critical.

Two practical takeaways for anyone reading or preparing sustainability disclosure this reporting season:

Environmental impact statement. The document a company submits to government setting out what a project will do to the environment and people, and how it will manage those effects. Government approval of it is usually the main environmental permit. Called an EIS in Canada; the closest Australian equivalents are an environmental review document or environmental impact assessment.

Judicial review. A court case that asks a judge to check whether a government decision was made properly, following the right process. It is about how the decision was made, not whether it was a good decision.

Duty to consult. In Canada, the legal obligation on governments to consult Indigenous peoples before approving something that may affect their rights. The obligation sits with the Crown, not the company, though companies usually do much of the work.

Mutual Benefits Agreement. An agreement between a company and an Indigenous nation setting out how a project's economic and social benefits will be shared, and recording that nation's support. Broadly comparable to an Indigenous Land Use Agreement in Australia.

Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) S2. The Australian climate disclosure standard, now mandatory for large companies. It covers climate risk, governance and emissions. Its companion standard for all other sustainability matters, AASB S1, is voluntary in Australia.

Limited assurance. A review by an auditor that is narrower than a full audit. The auditor confirms nothing has come to their attention suggesting the information is wrong. It is the level of checking currently required for mandatory climate disclosure.

This week at CFS - We launch the Groundwork Program

The approvals that hold are the ones where the agreements were in place before the permit, not negotiated after it. Groundwork is CFS's approach to doing the social and environmental work alongside the feasibility studies, so that consent and approval arrive together rather than in the wrong order. If that is a conversation worth having, get in touch by emailing Bronwyn directly at [email protected].