Dispatch 5: Critical Minerals + Critical Insights: Pivot to Strategy & Reboot ESG

The Critical Challenge

The sudden and growing prominence of critical and rare earth minerals—as the foundation of our technological world—has upended the world of mines, minerals, energy and markets. China’s dominance in processing has added geopolitical urgency. Governments and markets are pushing to fast-track everything: exploration, from exploration to operations. But the faster we go, the greater the risk to the people and places where these minerals are found.  

Significant progress has been made in managing the interface between resources and people over the past two decades. However, the mining industry is so vast that it defies description, embracing everything from those struggling with the pick and shovel to eke out a living, exploration companies operating as juniors with a couple of handfuls of employees, small-scale miners with limited technologies, to huge multinationals with thousands of employees operating around the globe. There are not many places in the world where mining is not happening. Not surprisingly, progress has been uneven across the industry landscape. There are more good news stories, but bad news stories always attract more attention. The preoccupation with critical and rare earth minerals makes this space more energetic. 

The blunt, unwelcome truth is that it takes years—if not decades—to locate, mine, and process these minerals. Pressure is mounting to fast-track everything from exploration to regulatory approvals. The result will inevitably bring ever increasing risks for people, communities, landscapes, and watersheds. The “business case” must manage through a minefield of environmental, social, legal, reputational risks. Bridging this divide will be the most critical challenge facing critical minerals. Technological advances will be an Important driver. I believe that the far more significant challenge will be social innovation. In a talk given at the Satarla Conference, 2024, Pivotal Choices: Risks and Rewards; Reciprocity and Relationships 

“Complexities challenging the mining and energy sectors on multiple fronts are longstanding. Over the past 30 years, like a dense cloud of norms, standards, metrics, and acronyms reflecting a broad range of sustainability themes, which attempt to organize, guide, and measure this complicated world. On the ground below, people and resources interact across divides of values, rights, and interests, and power dynamics have shifted. Companies with their projects and armed with their “business case” are now confronted by communities with their own “community case,” seeking to protect their lands and waterways and share in benefits. Each sees the world through their own lenses and distinct currencies of value.” 

The status quo is not built for the scale and pace of what lies ahead. Doing more of the same will not be enough to match the undeniable demand. We must “do better,” meaning a more effective, efficient regulatory process that is built collaboratively to integrate seamlessly with company /community processes other players with a stake in the outcome. “Go slow to go fast” is a mantra I often use to emphasize the point that “if you do not begin in a good way you well end up in a bad place”. An immediate note of caution to make the point. “Fast-tracking” is not a helpful word – to those in the zones of the impact, these words feed fears and concerns that compromising quality for speed is the agenda.  

Over the past two decades, sustainable development has morphed into ESG. In upcoming posts, I’ll share “Critical Insights” from decades spent in the space where big problems meet big organizations—and where interests, values, and power collide around difficult decisions. But first, we need to go backward to move forward.  

“Does ESG Need a Hard Reset?”

Helle Bank Jorgensen, Chair of Competent Boards, recently shared a key takeaway from Davos 2025: “ESG needs a hard reset—less talk, more substance… Investors want more: harder data, clearer impact, and a direct link between ESG, risk management, innovation, and business strategy.” I agree with the intent—but I’d frame it differently. ESG doesn’t need a reset so much as a reboot. It needs to be reintegrated within a sustainable development lens, where it can serve as a tool—not the toolbox.  

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks have faced growing criticism. Detractors argue that ESG metrics are overly complex, lack clarity, and are susceptible to greenwashing. Some have called for a radical overhaul, calling it too broad, nebulous, and difficult to measure effectively—especially the S (social) and G (governance) dimensions. ESG has become further entangled in political discourse, particularly in the US, where its use in banking and investment decisions has faced growing resistance. Especially in the US but now reaching more broadly globally, ESG is caught in the political crossfire-accused of being a Trojan horse for “wokeness” and “DEI -diversity, equity, inclusion policies. I make passing mention of this only to say that wading into these rhetorical waters is at best a distraction and of no interest to me. 

 What does interest me is that important pragmatic efforts are underway to respond to growing issues and concerns around ESG. The Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative brings together the big industry players in the mining world including Copper Mark, ICMM. Mining Council of Canada-TSM and the World Gold Council as they” wrestle with the current complexity of responsible mining standards landscape, what needs to be done to address this and why the focus needs to be placed on promoting performance improvement across individual metals value chain.” Another example is The Responsible Mineral Initiative (RMI) (www.responsiblemineralinitiative.org ), through a multi-stakeholder project – RMI’s Multi-stakeholder Standards Advisory Committee, which are currently revising RMI’s ESG standard and a broad spectrum of standards and assessments. A multi-stakeholder group known as IRMA- Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (www.responsiblemining.net) has developed a third-party independent certification standard that is now being implemented after many years of effort which purports to be an assessment of industrial-scale mine sites for all mine materials that is governed equally by the private sector, local communities, civil society and workers.”  

All these efforts are fine and good, but not good enough to answer the challenge coming out of Davos. That is not to suggest that activities underway to refine existing standards and norms will not be helpful. But it will not be sufficient. To meet the Davos challenge, I believe we need to go “back to the future” – to revisit the foundational concepts from which sustainable development was borne.  

Our first mission must be to reintegrate ESG within sustainable development; we must go back- back to basics
to go forward. ESG has evolved as an attempt to translate sustainable development into a set of performance metrics purporting to evaluate how a company addresses environmental protection, social performance and governance practices. In the rush to quantify and ever better, we’ve lost sight of the core truth that not everything can be measured. Sustainable development was never just about numbers. It was about how decisions are reached and the outcomes achieved; it was about relationships and processes 

The quantitative world has long overpowered the qualitative world. There is nothing new in that. What gets counted counts, and what is counted gets managed. It’s not easy to attach a number to the cracks within an organization and move out externally into the communities impacted.  It’s not easy to put a number on perception. It’s not easy to put a number on culture. Or to reduce strategy to numbers. Most importantly, measuring the motivations that drive choices and decisions is impossible and is the basis of human experience.  

Sustainability is best understood at “Ground Zero”-where companies, communities, governments, Indigenous nations, and consistency intersect. Whether it’s a mine in a fragile watershed or an energy project in an indigenous territory, interests and rights collide. Metrics don’t capture what happens here. Trust negotiation and relationships matter more than spreadsheets. ESG struggles in these contexts.  

Scorecards, like scoreboards, are useful but they do not capture the dynamic on the ice where the smallest of maneuvers may have made all the difference in putting the puck in the net. ESG frameworks may tick all boxes yet  local anger festers and suddenly breaks out in a roadblock  shutting down the mine.In  the world of people and relationships seemingly “small thing” may have very big consequence s which often leads me to say “if you want to work on the big stuff, sweat the small stuff” 

Going Forward by Working Backward

When Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland introduced sustainable development to the world in the 1987 Brundtland Report, she framed it in one simple yet powerful phrase:   

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”  

Brundtland understood that Sustainability isn’t just about the environment. It’s about human behavior, responsibility, and equity across generations. She also foresaw the trap ESG now finds itself. Many pushed back on the terms of reference of the Commission, urging that it only include environmental vectors more amenable to science and metrics, but she resisted:  

“The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs… and attempts to defend it in isolation from human concerns have given the word ‘environment’ a connotation of naivety in some political circles.”  

She understood that sustainable development was not just about ecosystems; at the core about economies, societies, and values. It was about people’s hopes and fears, motivations and choices, organizations, cultures, decision-making, and governance structures. She challenged conventional wisdom to think more elastically, embrace complexity, develop new ways of thinking and acting, and accept the moral imperative of having regard for the rights and interests of generations yet to be borne. Canada was an early adopter and leader.  

A Flashback

Canada’s early involvement in Sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) began in 1986 when the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (CCREM) established a National Task Force to explore the intersection of the environment and the economy. This set the stage for deeper engagement following the release of the Brundtland Commission’s landmark 1987 report, Our Common Future. Jim MacNeill, a Canadian, served as Secretary General of the Commission and became a key figure in Canada’s sustainability efforts. In 1988, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announced at the UN Canada’s plan to establish an international institute for sustainable development and a National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE)—both direct responses to the Brundtland Report. That year, CCREM also became the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), a national forum for environmental leadership.  

The NRTEE was formally launched in 1989, with legislative status granted in 1993. In 1990, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) was created in Winnipeg, which took inspiration from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in the U.K. Through the 1990s, provincial and territorial round tables were formed with multi-stakeholder representation, with British Columbia’s Round Table notably focusing on practical pathways from dialogue to action. A landmark effort in 1993—Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Guiding Principles—brought together national and provincial round tables, CCME, and Quebec’s Ministry of Environment in a process led by Barry Stuart who was a member of the Executive Committee of NRTEE  who enlisted the support of his colleagues Glenn Sigurdson and Gerald Cormick in leading the initiative. This initiative provided pragmatic tools for decision-making and stakeholder engagement, gained widespread recognition and was referenced in several international agreements. Subsequently, Stuart, Sigurdson and Cormick were co-authors of Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Turning Principles into Practice – in effect, a how-to manual to give effect to these Guiding Principles, which became a widely used manual and textbook  

In 1994, the Whitehorse Mining Leadership Accord laid a sustainability vision for Canada’s mining industry, emphasizing Indigenous partnerships, environmental practices, and stakeholder engagement. By 1998, Canada expanded its leadership internationally through a workshop in Lima, Peru—organized by NRCan, IDRC, and IISD—to build a sustainable mining vision for Latin America, uniting diverse voices across the region. In 1999, the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) initiative was launched globally by IIED, with Luke Danielson as its project director. The MMSD’s final report, Breaking New Ground, delivered in 2002, laid a comprehensive global agenda for a more sustainable mining sector.  

From 1985 to 1995, Gerald Cormick and I delivered programs to multi-stakeholder groups from across the resource sector at the Banff Center for Management titled “Resolving Complex Resource and Environmental Disputes.” Below is a Table we developed as a practical tool that I believe remains helpful to understand sustainability as a strategic lens through which to navigate through the rocks on the road ahead with low beams and with high beams to see the destination ahead. ESG provides a helpful rear view mirror view which shows the road already travelled but not where and how to go forward. 

Sustainability: A Strategic Lens

Sustainable Relationships: Sustainable Outcomes

Sustainability challenges us to:  

• Make decisions of a different nature.
• Rethink how we make decisions and who should be involved. 

Sustainability must be understood in terms of the following: 

• Achieving better outcomes—living in and from the natural world, informed by science, ecosystem dynamics, and intergenerational resource management. 
• The decision-making process—how we navigate complex systems, collaborate across organizations, and develop the skills and tools. 

Sustainability requires a shift in thinking: 

• Expanding scope. 
• Extending timelines. 
• Integrating across boundaries. 

It is a value that: 

• Establishes a foundation for action. 
• Guides decision-making. 
• Creates new responsibilities, requiring tools and skills to manage them. 

To operate sustainability, we must: 

• Develop new approaches for making decisions across conventional boundaries, outside but alongside traditional authority structures, and among diverse values. 
• Design fit-for-purpose processes that match the complexity of the challenge, rather than forcing challenges into outdated structures. 
• Build decision-making platforms within and beyond organizations, allowing multiple stakeholders with competing interests to engage productively. 

Key building blocks include: 

• Seeing relationships as assets—to be established, managed, repaired, and leveraged. 
• Creating shared context—finding common ground on why and how to do business before doing business. 
• Understanding dynamics—moving beyond static organizational charts to recognize the networks and relationships that truly drive decision-making. 
• Strengthening internal and external linkages—ensuring organizations and stakeholders develop the capacity to anticipate issues and resolve disputes before they escalate.
• Developing concepts, tools, and skills—building practical capabilities to manage sustainability challenges effectively. 

 “Safety” within organizations is a helpful analogy. Safety reports alone are useful, but a culture of daily practices and proactive measures ensures a safe working environment. In parallel, Sustainability must become living, dynamic element of organizational culture, actively practiced and prioritized from “tailgates” to executive suites. The intangible currency takes the form of respect, reciprocity, and reconciliation exchanged daily among countless individuals and interactions foundational to building a culture of Sustainability.  

In subsequent dispatches, my goal will be to build from this foundation, my goal will be to share Critical Insights on what it will take to break the trail for new pathways to new platforms to respond to the Critical Minerals Challenge what it will take to break through onto new pathways and platforms to respond to the Critical minerals challenge. In other words, what will it take to break out beyond the status quo?  

Readers interested in a more in-depth discussion of the “Drilling Up Series ” of dispatches can access:
 “Troubles to Transformation”  is the title of a recent Podcast 12 part Series featuring Glenn Sigurdson and Luke Danielson in conversations hosted by Priscilla Nelson of the Colorado School of Mines and Monica Ospina as the first in a Podcast Platform – an Oral History of Mining, Mining Dialogues: From Troubles to Transformation, in collaboration with Satarla global risk management and Sustainability consultancy headquartered in the U.K.

 (The cover photo is an image of volcanic activity in Iceland. It is a dramatic representation of change and transformation. It demonstrates how pressure can build beneath the surface until it can no longer be contained, paralleling the need for organizations to evolve beyond the status quo.)