‘Wise Counsel’: perspectives from the recent meeting of RR’s Global Advisory Council

This note provides a summary of some perspectives shared at the first plenary session of the Resource Resolutions Global Advisory Council, held in Q2 2025. In attendance were:

• Mark Cutifani CBE, former CEO of Anglo American and chair of Vale Base Metals
• Chad Holliday, former Chair of Shell and WBCSD
• Prof. Elizabeth Robinson, acting Dean of the LSE School of Sustainability
• Dame Meg Taylor, former founding VP of the World Bank’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman
• Dr. Kandeh Yumkella, former UN Under-Secretary General

The discussion was held under the Chatham House Rule and as such comments are not attributed. The summary was prepared by Chris Melville, Resource Resolutions’ co-founder and head of operations.

Key points from the discussion

Amid growing geopolitical competition, concerted efforts are needed to ensure resource-hosting countries realise the socio-economic potential of their resources

• The US is now pursuing a more assertive resource-oriented foreign policy to counteract two decades of Chinese expansion across resource supply chains. This has given rise to the emerging narrative that a new ‘Great Game’ for resource control has been unleashed among major powers.
• In the past, such renewed geopolitical interest in resource development has not always translated into improved socio-economic development for resource-hosting countries. Take a country like Sierra Leone, for instance, which saw major investments in iron ore during the last commodity super cycle and exported minerals worth $1.2 billion in 2023, only retaining $40 million of mineral revenues in its Treasury that year – less than the amount paid to mining contractors.
• Or take a country like Papua New Guinea, whose economy is similarly dominated by mineral exports, but where inequitable distribution of benefits, environmental degradation and diminishing trust in the state are giving rise to a new and alarming trend of warlordism and inter-tribal violence.
• In a context of increased geopolitical competition for resources coupled with often inequitable outcomes for resource-hosting countries and project-affected communities, there is a material risk that resource development will only drive deeper divisions and conflict, leading to missed development opportunities, wasted investment and, in the worst cases, increased violence and human insecurity.
• To ensure continued access to the resources the world needs to meet the material demands of the future and achieve a fair and fast energy transition, redoubled efforts will be required to construct fair deals with host countries, underpinned by equity and justice, and renewed focus on realising the socio-economic potential of resource exploitation.

‘ESG’ may be out of fashion, but the resources industry should not throw the baby out with the bathwater

• The recent shift in US policy suggests that hard bargaining is back in vogue, including around natural resources. Likewise, the encouragement for the resources industry to “drill, baby, drill” and “dig, baby, dig” has raised concern in some quarters that these exhortations may encourage the industry to roll-back commitments to improve the environmental performance and social outcomes of resource development.
• For some commentators, bilateral deal making looks like a way to exclude legitimate interests and getting rid of red tape is just code for getting rid of environmental protections. At the same time, political moves to withdraw funding for environmental NGOs in the US (and, to a lesser degree, in the EU) are having a chilling effect on programmes that seek to keep companies and governments accountable when it comes to impacts on the environment
• However, notwithstanding the US policy shift against “ESG” and erosions of some regulatory protections in the US and beyond, there are strong arguments for resource companies to persist with (and deepen) their commitment to partnerships with host communities and to continue to improve the industry’s social and environmental track record.
• Key among these is that committed efforts to improve safety, environmental and social performance over the past twenty years have underpinned many companies’ ability to develop resources beyond traditional resource geographies and sustain their returns, expanding global metals supply and supporting global growth.
• If developers were to take safety and good community relations, local job creation and capacity building out of the picture, while also experiencing an increase in environmental accidents and industrial fatalities, any desire to accelerate the resource development would be quickly confronted by a resurgent wave of social opposition (already at quite elevated levels around some projects). Moving away from the term ‘ESG’ could be an option, but it is important remember that the core competencies it tried to codify are as important – more important – than ever.

For companies, it’s not easy to engage in real dialogue with sceptical or distrustful stakeholders, but it’s worth it

• Building long-term sustainable partnerships between resource companies and host governments and communities, based on dialogue and real mutual understanding, is not easy. Negative perceptions of an industry – based at times in real legacies of harm and exploitation – often shape attitudes towards resource investments, and sometimes even before ground has been broken.
• Being confronted with such perceptions can be difficult for resource executives – no-one likes the idea of spending the first fifty minutes of a stakeholder dialogue being harangued by angry NGOs, disgruntled ministers or unhappy community members.
• But it’s necessary to remember that it is often only in the closing minutes of an engagement – once any anger and fear and disappointment has been vented and acknowledged – that more constructive conversations can be held about possible solutions to the problems that are driving people’s anger. It’s not easy, but if companies want to make those kinds of connections, these sorts of dialogue initiatives mean a great deal and it is often the only way to get a different kind of conversation going.

New forms of dialogue will be needed to address divisions over deep-sea mining

• A “different kind of conversation” could be needed to unpick the increasingly heated debate around the mining of deep-sea nodules. Supporters argue that one of the major attractions of deep-sea exploration and development is that it could avoid the kind of environmental and social disruption that can make mining contentious on-land.
• However, opponents, whether among international NGOs or in the coastal communities of Asia Pacific (where much early deep-sea exploration has taken place), argue equally vehemently that the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining (DSM) would pose critical risks to marine ecosystems. Such caution, they feel, is merited in the perceived absence of robust scientific evidence to the contrary.
• Such divisions are increasingly reflected at international level, with the US newly enthused at the commercial and economic possibilities of DSM while the EU is politically incentivised to support a moratorium in international waters.  
• Resolving these differences will be critical to constructing a well-considered approach to mining underwater. Improving scientific understanding of the potential environmental impacts will be crucial, as data should form the basis of any reasonable policy at international and national levels. Likewise, building public understanding of the role that mining (both conventional and deep-sea) plays in sustaining prosperity and living standards.
• However, for DSM to gain public acceptance, companies and governments interested in developing deep-sea nodules will also need to engage with deep public suspicion and anxiety about mining the new ‘mineral frontier’.