Resource Development: Data Speaks, but Trust Decides
We are communications and public engagement professionals, but our perspectives were shaped in forests, fields, laboratories, and community halls across Canada. What we have come to appreciate, through many projects and conversations and often the hard way, is that data, on its own, is not enough to move resource development priorities forward.
Across a combined 30+ years working in forestry, mining, fisheries, energy, agriculture, and other resource sectors, we have seen firsthand how outcomes are shaped not just by data and evidence, but by relationships. Again and again, we have found ourselves grappling with the same question: how do we build understanding, trust, and that ever-elusive social licence in increasingly complex public arenas?
Public interest in resource decision making is very high, particularly as Canada confronts the need to drive economic growth, strengthen competitiveness, and achieve long-term resource self-sufficiency. At the same time, the narratives surrounding natural resource decision making are increasingly fragmented and polarized. Information now travels faster, through more channels, and is interpreted through deeply personal lenses. Context and nuance can easily be lost, and people are as likely to trust family and friends as much as scientists, industry leaders, or their own government officials.
This is not simply a communications challenge. It reflects a shift in how trust is earned and sustained. Project proponents, decision-makers and experts need to show up differently if they want to be heard.
Information does not equal inspiration
More data alone will rarely deepen understanding or achieve broader support. People change their perspectives, and even their behaviour, when they feel personally connected to an issue. Effective engagement moves beyond transmitting data to helping people see themselves in the opportunity, the trade-offs, and the outcomes.
Intersection of knowledge systems
Western science has greatly influenced the ways in which information is framed, communicated and consumed by the general public in the natural resources sector. Western scientific approaches provide empirical and analytical frameworks, but they only represent one epistemological lens. Indigenous knowledge systems articulate complex, relational and longitudinal understandings of land that are grounded in generations of lived experience and intergenerational transmission.
Sharing teachings and insights from these knowledge systems not only fosters more balanced and holistic perspectives in the dissemination of information, but we have also witnessed how the intersection of this data actively recognizes and affirms voices, histories and ongoing contributions of Indigenous peoples.
Distinguish rights holders from interest groups
The term “stakeholder” has long functioned as a convenient catch-all for target audiences for relationship building. Today it is recognized as inadequate and antiquated. Rooted in the action of staking a claim, it carries colonial assumptions that diminish important distinctions. By acknowledging colonial harms and moving away from one-size-fits-all terminology, we can better reflect the realities of those impacted by decision-making processes.
Treating all voices as interchangeable obscures meaningful differences in rights, responsibilities, and relationships to land and resources. Through our actions, language, and intention-setting, we have seen the benefits of instead making these distinctions visible and honouring the distinct roles and responsibilities that different parties bring to the table.
While many interests deserve to be heard, Indigenous Nations are not simply another interested party. They are rights holders, with distinct rights and place-based relationships to land. Meaningful engagement and effective relationships-building begins with recognizing and acting on this distinction.
Co-creation is the most powerful social licence strategy
When people are meaningfully involved early, trust grows, even when final decisions are imperfect or contested. Co-creation goes beyond consultation or participation for its own sake. At its best, it is about identifying shared interests, surfacing local knowledge, and shaping outcomes that deliver mutual value. Across sectors, we have seen that co-created approaches reduce conflict, improve project design, and lead to decisions that are more resilient over time. While co-creation means earlier and greater investments in engagement and communications, the positive results are undeniable. When communities, rights holders, and proponents can see how their priorities are reflected in outcomes, co-creation builds the shared ownership that long-term stewardship and effective resource development require.
Engagement excellence is essential leadership practice
Resource development has always been technically complex. Increasingly, it is relationally complex as well. Leaders who communicate openly, involve communities early, and are transparent about uncertainty are better positioned to navigate emerging issues and make durable decisions.
Building and sustaining trust requires more than communication. It requires listening, learning, and a willingness to evolve. While data remains foundational to responsible resource development, long-term success depends equally on the strength of the relationships built around it and a more holistic view of the knowledge that informs the work.
