Shifting the Burden: Corporate Indigenous Relations and How They Can Go Wrong

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very fine and publishable paper.  It deserves to be published forthwith. The core argument -- which I would summarize as the reality that Indigenous communities and corporations see their relationships in different transactional terms, leading to the potential for serious misunderstandings based on very different world views -- is worth sharing.  The concept, which is theorized and conceptualized here, is not new.  I fact, the central idea has framed debate about the Indigenous-newcomer relations for generations and is central to the understanding of the treaties.  This article is well-placed in the literature and in evidence from the field.  It makes a substantial contribution to the literature, in particular because of the unusually diverse group of co-authors and the multi-cultural perspectives that this group brings to the topic.  Well done!!

I have one observation that is much more by way of a question than a criticism.  The paper is, as written, an excellent illustration of contemporary social science, with little likely impact on the Indigenous communities involved.  There is a great irony, given the topic, that this complicate and highly conceptual paper would likely no resonate in the communities affected by it implications.  

Author Response

Thank you for sharing your valuable time and expertise to provide a critical assessment, thoughtful feedback, and guidance on how to optimize the manuscript for ease of readability. See our attached report for a responses to your peer review.

With gratitude,

The Co-Researchers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an insightful and well written paper that demonstrates how university scholars can create meaningful relationships and insights with Indigenous partners. The paper highlights the ways that fundamental systemic problems undermine the relationships between Indigenous communities and corporations. The paper also, rightly I think, points out that the unstable fluctuations in commodity prices drives corporate relationship building. The authors use figures effectively to illustrate abstract concepts. While the full story of what happened between the Indigenous community and the corporation is not able to be captured in this paper, enough details are supplied for the reader to apply the abstract concepts to potential existing conflicts. Their attention to the need for honesty is particularly important in these contexts.

I am left wondering if the systems approach to understanding conflict and distrust is enough to overcome the pressures of capitalism, including different concepts of time and timelines as well as shifts in corporate leadership and policy environments (for better or worse). Are there examples where this has worked? Or is this type of systems approach inherently antithetical to how corporations and governments behave due to the constraints of the capitalist system? Given the behavior of the Soviet Union, etc., it is also about modernist paradigms. I commend the authors for working through their experiences in a way that could appeal to corporate and government actors as well as other scholars.

Here are my minor recommendations to improve the paper:

1. Add a figure on page three about the adaptive cycle to illustrate abstract concept.
2. Consider increasing the font size and overall size of the figures. They are a bit difficult to read (can also depend on printer quality).
3. Consider decreased use of backslash / in the introduction if that is acceptable to community partners.
4. Possible inclusion of more sources on constraints of capitalism on systems approach, but this might be beyond the scope and space available in the paper.

With some minor adjustments, I recommend this paper for publication. If the authors are able to do so (legally, etc.), I hope that the authors will be sharing the story of what happened between the Fort McKay First Nation and corporate actors in other publications.

Author Response

Thank you for sharing your valuable time and expertise to provide a critical assessment, thoughtful feedback, and guidance on how to optimize the manuscript for ease of readability. See our attached report for a responses to your peer review.

With gratitude,

The Co-Researchers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Shifting the Burden: Corporate Indigenous Relations and How They Can Go Wrong" presents a compelling analysis of corporate-Indigenous relationships using the Shifting the Burden systems archetype. The study offers valuable insights into the structural dynamics that undermine trust-building efforts, particularly in the context of mine reclamation and Indigenous engagement in Canada. However, to further strengthen the paper, the following questions should be addressed: 

1. Theoretical Depth and Integration

The study primarily relies on the Shifting the Burden archetype for its analysis. While this framework is useful, how does it engage with broader theories of decolonization, Indigenous methodologies (e.g., Two-Eyed Seeing), or critical stakeholder theory? Could a more integrated theoretical approach enhance the explanatory power of the findings? 

2. Methodological Transparency

The paper describes the use of focus groups and participant observation, but key methodological details—such as participant selection criteria, data coding procedures, and strategies for mitigating researcher bias—are not fully elaborated. How were power imbalances between corporate and Indigenous participants managed in the focus groups? 

3. Generalizability and Contextual Limitations

The case study focuses on Fort McKay First Nation and Alberta’s oil sands industry, which operates under specific legal (e.g., Duty to Consult) and economic conditions. How might the findings differ in regions with weaker Indigenous rights protections or different industrial contexts (e.g., renewable energy projects)? 

4. Practical Implementation of Recommendations

The proposed interventions (e.g., honesty, humility, humor, hyper-reflexivity) are conceptually sound but lack operational specifics. How can corporations realistically implement these principles within profit-driven structures? Are there measurable indicators for assessing progress in trust-building? 

Addressing these points would significantly enhance the paper’s theoretical rigor, methodological clarity, and practical relevance.

Author Response

Thank you for sharing your valuable time and expertise to provide a critical assessment, thoughtful feedback, and guidance on how to optimize the manuscript for ease of readability.

With gratitude,

The Co-Researchers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The image resolution is too low and the text is blurry

Author Response

Thank you, reviewer, for helping us to improve the quality and readability of our manuscript. The image resolution has been resolved.