This note provides a selected summary of perspectives shared at the second plenary session of the RR’s Global Advisory Council, held on 26th March 2026. The discussion was held under the Chatham House Rule and as such comments are not attributed. The meeting ranged across a broad set of topics. This note highlights just a few of the issues discussed. In attendance at the meeting were:
- Mark Cutifani CBE, former CEO of Anglo American and chair of Vale Base Metals
- Chad Holliday, former Chair of Shell and WBCSD
- Mark Podlasly, CEO, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
- Dame Meg Taylor, former founding VP of the World Bank’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman
- Dr. Kandeh Yumkella, former UN Under-Secretary General
One member of RR’s Global Advisory Council, Elizabeth Robinson (Professor of Environmental Economics at the LSE) was unable to attend this particular meeting.
This summary was prepared by Ben MacLeod from RR.
Selected points from the discussion
As geopolitical sands shift, governments and companies must be alert to new threats and opportunities
- Critical minerals are now at the centre of an intense geopolitical competition that is reshaping incentives for both host governments and companies. Alongside global super-powers, a range of “middle powers” – including countries like Germany, the Gulf States, and Japan – are becoming much more active in trying to secure access to resources and to build resilient supply chains. At events such as PDAC, large trade delegations from these states have been keen to understand Indigenous perspectives and to forge alliances that can differentiate them from heavier‑handed competitors.
- At the same time, more muscular approaches from some major powers are creating new risks. Recent US initiatives have seen teams travel across multiple African countries with draft MOUs and agreements that seek exclusivity over critical minerals for extended periods, sometimes even pushing for the exclusion of existing partners. In several cases, there are reports of these mineral agreements being linked, implicitly or explicitly, to the resumption of health‑sector aid or to controversial requests for access to citizens’ health data, raising questions about conditionality and sovereignty.
- Meanwhile, host governments themselves are becoming more assertive in their demands. Frustrated by low fiscal returns and the perception that others capture most of the value, they are seeking larger equity stakes, greater control over infrastructure, and more comprehensive local benefits.
- While all of these dynamics in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape can increase short‑term uncertainty for investors, they also create a space for more sustainable long‑term partnerships in which states, companies and communities share risk and reward along the value chain, provided the negotiations are transparent and grounded in realistic economics.
Tackling ‘bad actors’ in disputes: parties using underhand tactics or applying hidden pressures can make resolving disputes difficult – but there may be ways to negate their influence
- Conflicts and disputes around natural resources are often amplified by ‘bad actors’ – individuals or networks seeking to create or exploit divisions to serve their own personal or political aims. Such pressures and underhand influence have long been a challenge for resource companies. But as natural resources become more deeply embedded in national development strategies and international power struggles, these risks are becoming more complex and difficult to navigate.
- Responding effectively to these dynamics requires treating them as strategic challenges, not just operational hazards. Companies that are most successful typically invest early in deep social and political mapping to understand who is influential (both formally and informally), how the system works, and which actors in communities, religious institutions, and local government carry weight when disputes escalate.
- Being creative about which stakeholders to engage can also be crucial for negating the influence of bad actors and shifting incentives. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may mean working through respected church leaders, imams, local chiefs or other community figures whose authority in practice may match or exceed that of formal office holders, or deliberately seeking out ministers, advisors, or technocrats who can provide a route to the head of state. In some instances, the most effective counterweight to a domestic bad actor has been an external figure – a foreign leader, an international mediator, or a widely respected public figure – whose involvement raises the political cost of corrupt behaviour.
- At the same time, companies can deploy quieter, pre‑emptive tactics to deter corrupt demands before they are openly made. In one Southern African jurisdiction, when a major mining company anticipated pressure to transfer an asset to politically exposed buyers, it arranged a meeting in which a member of the company’s legal team explained the company’s strict ethical standards and diplomatically mentioned its close working relationship with a particular independent state agency responsible for investigating abuses of power. By signalling that any inappropriate request would trigger immediate engagement with an independent oversight institution, the company was able to forestall any explicit corrupt demands.
- Larger, reputable firms have a particular responsibility in this. Because of their greater leverage, they are better placed to resist corrupt overtures and invest in careful stakeholder mapping, setting higher standards that others can align to. When a critical mass of firms behaves appropriately and is seen to do so, it becomes harder for bad actors to find counterparties willing to play by their rules.
Communities must come first and last: deeper forms of community engagement are needed around projects
- Successful resource and energy projects begin by understanding what the community wants, not by presenting a pre‑designed mining or energy plan. Many communities are aware of the need for critical minerals and are curious to be involved in their development but are wary due to previous experience of negative impacts and exclusion from decision-making. Listening deeply to community concerns, fears, and needs should be the point of departure for any conversation about the development of resource projects. If communities feel listened to and able to shape development it can unlock further conversations around potential win-wins such as greater economic opportunity, stable revenues, and the creation of alternative livelihoods.
- Deeper community engagement also requires companies and governments to understand long‑standing patterns of marginalisation and distrust. In Peru, for example, conflict around the Yanacocha mine was shaped only partly by the specific behaviour of the company and more by a long history in which Indigenous and marginalised populations had been systematically excluded from power by the state, the church, and other institutions. In such settings, technical consultations alone cannot address the feeling that “we have no voice in society”. Companies need to embed and integrate insights from anthropologists, sociologists, and community‑relations teams on the ground to understand communities’ histories and interpret how national‑level decisions are experienced locally.
- NGOs can play constructive roles in these contexts but should not be treated as substitutes for direct engagement with rights holders. Such organisations may articulate environmental concerns that resonate with many, yet they ultimately answer to their funders and their own agendas rather than to communities themselves. In some cases, NGOs can effectively “capture” a community, limiting direct access and presenting themselves as its voice, even when their priorities diverge from local aspirations – leading some communities to describe the NGOs themselves as the “bad actors” in certain disputes.
- The need to put communities first is especially acute as the world races to accelerate access to mineral resources on Indigenous lands. For example, fast‑track permitting poses particular risks when they are perceived as bypassing community and Indigenous rights. In Canada, federal fast‑track legislation was introduced without prior consultation with Indigenous peoples, triggering deep mistrust and a widespread belief that it was designed to sidestep consent rather than to facilitate better participation. Subsequent efforts by government to reframe the law, insisting that it should be used to bring Indigenous parties into commercial participation more effectively, not to bulldoze over their rights, have struggled to rectify this mistrust.
Bridging stakeholder divides often requires innovation, both in terms of technical approaches around projects and tactics used to build trust
- Bridging entrenched divides cannot be achieved through dialogue alone – credible technical solutions will often underpin any attempt to build common understanding. In disputes over environmental impacts or water usage, communities and activists may see little reason to engage if there is no practical solution on the table. Technical teams therefore need to start by asking whether and how the project can be redesigned – for example, changing mine planning or water management – so that the feared impacts are structurally minimised.
- However, even the best technical solution requires the trust of communities to succeed. Often, when disputes are entrenched and trust is not built, consultation collapses before technical discussions can even begin. Nevertheless, technical solutions can be used to open paths towards new, more constructive conversations and facilitate bridge building between stakeholders.
- For example, some companies have established participatory monitoring mechanisms in which communities select the laboratories that test water and air samples, help define the indicators, and are directly involved in verifying compliance with environmental commitments. This provides communities a sense of ownership over the data, allowing them to better challenge or validate company commitments.
Resource Resolutions 