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

Abstract

This paper utilizes the Shifting the Burden Archetype (Senge/Stroh) to document a systemic pattern that is unfortunately, often unconscious to the parties involved and inadvertently leads to the undermining of corporate or government/Indigenous relationships, despite best intentions. Based on over a decade of experience in these contentious contexts, the author(s), document a set of interacting feedback loops that illustrate an unfortunate set of patterns of behaviour, based on starkly different worldviews, in which the choice to engage in more superficial attempts at relationship building actually undermines the ability of the parties to engage in the more difficult but fundamental solution of trust-based relationships. Recommendations for interventions in these typical or archetypal relationships will be made based on an understanding of the dynamics of the system and process design.

1. Introduction

This paper explores the utility of a systems-based analysis employed to uncover problematic patterns of behaviour that inhibit, and actually undermine, efforts to transform the relationships between mining corporations and impacted Indigenous communities. The analysis is based on approximately 15 years of Indigenous research collaborations and, especially, leadership and participant observation in the context of a funded project in corporate Indigenous relations over approximately a 5-year period. The implications of this analysis could, however, be useful beyond corporate Indigenous relations and may reveal problematic patterns in almost any attempt by non-Indigenous organizations to begin to engage in crosscultural processes of reconciliation, Indigenization, and decolonization, or in any organization attempting to make transformative change.

The analysis uses a well-established systems-based tool, systems archetypes, originally described and employed by Peter Senge in his seminal book The Fifth Discipline [1] but more recently employed by David Peter Stroh in his consulting work and associated book Systems Thinking for Social Change [2]. In particular, the analysis herein uses an adapted version of Stroh’s Shifting the Burden system archetype [2]. Before continuing to describe the tool and discuss the analysis, it is important to situate the research, and especially important to situate the author(s).

Statement of Positionality

As a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, well-educated male, the lead author has incredible privilege, most of which they are completely unaware of but that they are constantly working to uncover. Their ancestors came to Turtle Island (now known as North America, and, in particular, Canada) in about the 1840s from Ireland and took advantage of broken Treaty promises and benefited from those broken Treaty promises, and they continue to benefit from them today. Since the lead author began working in crosscultural contexts, they have begun their life’s work of revealing the immense privilege that came from the place they were born, the family they were born into, and the body they inhabit. They have also begun the slow process of mapping their many “complexes” (in a Jungian sense) to enable them to show up in a “good way”, or at least a better, more mature way, to interact with other people. As Stroh indicates,

for any complex problem to be solved, the individual players all need to recognize how they unwittingly contribute to it. Once they understand their own responsibility for a problem, they can begin by changing the part of the system over which they have the greatest control: themselves … the greatest opportunities for lasting change arise when all the players reflect on and shift their own intentions, assumptions, and behavior

[2] (pp. 25–26)

Or put differently, from Lama Rod Owens’ book Love and Rage, “If we don’t do our work, we become work for other people.” [3] (p. 52).

The lead author had the privilege of being mentored by some very patient teachers over their years. In the context of this kind of crosscultural work, the author acknowledges that they have placed a cognitive and emotional burden on many Indigenous colleagues, mentors, and friends, in that the author had not done enough of their own work, and so, they have become work for these Indigenous individuals and groups. This would have taken the form of having to point out the author’s privilege, bias, and lack of understanding of the history and trauma associated with colonization. In the lead author’s fifteen or so years doing this kind of work, they have had the privilege of working with many amazing Knowledge Holders, Elders, and youth, from Northern Quebec to Northern and Southern Ontario, Manitoba, and Northern Alberta to Haida Gwaii. They have been so generous with their knowledge, time, patience, and care, as well as their deep commitment to protecting Mother Earth and to building and repairing relationships. The lead author acknowledges and thanks all of them for every gift they have given them in their healing journey.

The authors of this paper are predominantly non-Indigenous scholars, environmental practitioners and graduate students living in the country of Canada but whose ancestors came from Northern Europe and South America. One of our co-authors is an Indigenous Knowledge Holder, environmental advocate, and community leader from Fort McKay First Nation who was the community-liaison for the Co-Reclamation project cited below. The Fort McKay community as well as the Oil Sands Company reviewed and approved this manuscript before it was submitted.

The authors believe that the complex systems-based tools utilized in this paper may be useful and resonant entry points, or invitations, to begin a process of individual, organizational, institutional healing. This kind of healing, or cross-scalar, systemic “therapy”, may be possible by uncovering unconscious patterns of thought and behaviour that not only inhibit, but actually undermine, efforts to move towards reconciliation and healing. The aim of this paper is to explore the utility of a systems-based analysis to uncover problematic patterns of behaviour that inhibit efforts to transform the relationships between mining corporations and impacted host Indigenous communities.

2. Background Literature Review

2.1. Social Innovation and Resilience

Social innovation is a term often applied to processes, products, strategies, or set of initiatives that result in profound, and ideally resilient, changes to the dynamics of the system in which they are applied [4,5]. Social innovation, like many forms of innovation studied, falls into two categories, incremental and radical innovation [6]: the former is more often predictable, while the latter presents more challenges and requires novel ways of thinking [4,5,7]. The adaptive cycle [8], shown in Figure 1 provides insights into how we can understand both radical and incremental social innovation.

The “front loop” of the adaptive cycle represents incremental innovation where the exploitation phase moves into the conservation phase; at this point, the system may fall into a rigidity trap, or a window of opportunity for change may be triggered, which flips the system into the “back loop”. Radical innovation, which comprises release and reorganization, is represented by the back loop of the adaptive cycle. In this back loop, there are opportunities for building resilience into the transformed system [4,8,10].

Taking a systems perspective is crucial to understanding how innovation can lead to what is dubbed the “paradox of innovation”, which describes how innovation can both contribute to confirming unsustainable systems and be a tool to transition into resilient sustainable systems [7,11]. This paradox illustrates that some innovation can support the resilience of the broader institutions and systems that produce and reproduce the problem itself [7].

2.2. Systems-Based Approaches to Social Change

Systems-based approaches move beyond simple, linear, and cause-and-effect tools of analysis to embrace complexity; in this way, systems science provides methods for seeing the underlying structures that create or perpetuate complex situations [1,12]. Systems are defined not only by the components that make up the system but also the relationship between these components or variables [7]. Building off Senge’s work, David Peter Stroh [2] asserts that, by applying systems thinking, change agents should avoid the pursuit of immediate solutions, that despite being attractive, only address the symptoms of the problem. Instead, Stroh argues, change agents must pursue resilient systemic and structural change, which is often more difficult than finding immediate solutions [2]. System dynamic modelling has emerged as a useful tool to describe these underlying structures and the relationships that exist within them. System dynamic modelling delineates these relationships by describing “reinforcing feedback loops”, which drive systems into exponential rates of growth or decay, and “balancing feedback loops”, which bring the relationship to a stable state [13,14].

Some system dynamic models are seen so frequently that a group of commonly occurring models were introduced by Peter Senge as system archetypes [1]. Senge’s work was largely informed by the work of Jay Forrester on system dynamics and the organizational learning theories of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön [13,15]. While often applied in business management contexts, systems thinking and system dynamics have been successfully applied in natural resource management [16], environmental conflict management [17], community development [18], and decision-making [19].

Senge presents a series of archetypes that describe the pattern of behaviour of a system and offer a useful “basic structure or foundation” that a system model may be built upon [20]. These archetypes can be used as “templates for diagnosing vexing long-term problems” [21] (p. 2). For example, the Shifting the Burden systems archetype, shown in Figure 2, highlights the tension between implementing symptomatic solutions against more fundamental resolutions. The former simply addresses the visible concern while the latter addresses the underlying structure and/or processes that cause the visible concern.

As illustrated in Figure 2, in the Balancing 1 (B1) loop, the problem symptom is identified, and a symptomatic solution is quickly applied, often with the “easiest, most available, previously used, [or] organizationally accepted… fix” [21]. The problem symptom appears to be resolved in the short term; however, the symptomatic solution creates a side effect, as seen in Reinforcing 1 (R1) in Figure 2. As a result, the problem is either worsened or remains the same as it was before the symptomatic solution was applied. Each time the symptomatic solution is applied, and the side effect occurs, the resources available to implement the fundamental solution dwindle, resulting in a positive or reinforcing feedback loop. Given this positive feedback, eventually the problem symptom occurs once again, leaving change agents with the decision to apply a symptomatic solution or address the issue holistically by confronting the problematic underlying structures of the system.

The fundamental solution, however, depicted as the Balancing 2 (B2) loop in Figure 2, requires more resources to implement and often longer timelines than the solutions offered in the B1 loop. The fundamental solution, while perceptibly unattractive due to the resource and time investment, solves not only the problem symptoms but, more importantly, addresses the root cause of the problem, thereby breaking the feedback loop altogether [20,21]. This archetype illustrates how addressing the symptoms rather than the fundamental underlying problems can lead to reliance on symptomatic solutions and even contribute to the problem [1,22]. While merely solving the visible symptomatic concerns is an attractive option, it fails to address the underlying structures that cause these visible concerns and will result in the continuation of a system that lacks resilience and produces problems. Braun [20] highlights that the desirability of this approach is logical, as the investment of time and resources differs greatly between short-term (symptomatic) and long-term (fundamental) solutions. However, in failing to implement long-term fundamental solutions, the system will face concerns in perpetuity, likely resulting in a greater investment of time resources in the long run.

To better understand why a Shifting the Burden Archetype is operating, Kim notes that the “rightness” of a solution depends on one’s perspective; therefore, examining a problem or issue from different viewpoints or worldviews can supply individuals with this understanding [23]. Bringing together multiple perspectives as well as aligning the perspectives of various decision makers and the shared vision of rights holders can alleviate the pressure to apply a quick fix and instead address the fundamental problem at hand [20].

2.3. Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian Mining Industry

The mining of mineral, metals, and oil sands in Canada is considered one of the country’s most important economic sectors. It can also be a divisive issue for the original peoples of this land, the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, who are collectively referred to as Indigenous Peoples, and, in Canadian legal terminology, Aboriginal Peoples. The numerous culturally and regionally distinct First Nation (i.e., 630), Inuit (i.e., 53), and Metis communities across Canada [24] may welcome mining as an economic self-sufficiency opportunity and/or oppose its activities that pose a threat to Indigenous ways of life, livelihoods, and cultural areas.

International and Canadian law and policy grant Indigenous Peoples special protections and guides Indigenous engagement practices [25,26,27,28]. Such laws and policy affirm that Indigenous Peoples have the right to participate in decision-making about the future of their traditional territories and natural resources and to enjoy their land-dependent cultures. For example, the Canadian Constitution Act [25] recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights and the duty of the Crown to meaningfully consult and accommodate the relevant Indigenous Nation and to reasonably consider their interests when a project may infringe on their rights and title. Since “meaningful consultation” is a new legal concept, its definition has not been fully legally determined, but bare-minimum definitions have included the following: “meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and carefully considering the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement” [29]. Despite their legal rights, Indigenous Peoples have borne an unfair share of the burden of mining in Canada [28,30,31,32] because mining laws, regulations, and practices favour economic interests, focus on front-end project approval, and overlook the cultural sustainability element linked with mine closure and reclamation [33]. This has resulted in harms to the environment, well-being, and sustainability of the land-based Indigenous cultures hosting these projects. Furthermore, Indigenous communities have more to lose than any other segment of the population [34] because mining companies and governments can come and go, but Indigenous Peoples’ history, culture, and traditions are intimately and permanently connected to their ancestral homelands [28,33,34,35,36]. They will live with the socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural results of mine reclamation and closure decisions for generations.

3. Research Design and Methods

The authors did not set out a priori to conduct this study; rather, the concept for this paper emerged when a clear, systemic pattern emerged in the context of a mine closure and reclamation case study in which the authors were immersed. The overarching strategy used to design this intercultural paper and acquire knowledge was a combination of critical Indigenous research, participant observation, and community-based participatory methodologies layered on system archetypes [23], which describe common patterns of behaviour in organizations and theories of system change [1,2,37,38].

The community-based participatory research and critical Indigenous research involved researchers and community members equally engaging in all steps of a research process with an aim of improving practice or supporting social change by using collective, reflective, and systematic inquiry [39,40]. Critical Indigenous research also involves the centering of Indigenous concepts and worldviews and then coming to know and understand theory and research from that perspective, with reliance on relationships with Elders and other traditional Knowledge Holders, to examine Indigenous Peoples’ research questions and support their needs [37,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Participant observation as a qualitative data collection method is focused on gaining deep knowledge on social challenges [46]. This is accomplished by researchers immersing themselves within a given group of people and practices through extensive involvement with them in their environment over time while using critical reflexivity [47].

3.1. The Case Study

Case study research is generally the preferred strategy when researchers have little or no control over the phenomena or system of interest, when “how” or “why” questions are being posed, and when the focus is on current issues within a “real-life” context [47]. A case study approach is best suited for research that focuses on complex social phenomena because it allows the investigator to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of “real-life” events [47]. In particular, instrumental case studies are designed to provide insight into a specific issue as well as to refine a theoretical explanation [48].

Patterns of systemic behaviour were examined within a funded, long-term, applied, collaborative research project that focused on corporate Indigenous relations in the context of mine closure and reclamation in Canada. The identification of the Shifting the Burden Archetype emerged out of a retrospective reflection on the case study of the Oil Sands area of Northern Alberta, Canada.

3.2. The Co-Reclamation Project: The Reclamation and Closure of Alberta Oil Sands Projects in the Fort McKay Traditional Territory in Treaty 8

Fort McKay First Nation has nearly 900 band members, of which about 500 reside in the Hamlet of Fort McKay on the shores of the Athabasca River in Northeast Alberta. This is Treaty 8 Territory. Fort McKay boasts a long-standing history dating back to 1820, when the Hudson Bay Company built a trading post near the site of Fort McKay First Nation reserve. The First Nation also has reserve lands at Moose Lake and Buffalo Lake. With the Athabasca Oil Sands located within their homelands, Cree and Dënesuliné, often referred to as Dene, band and community members are faced with ongoing industrial impacts, both positive and negative, from the oil sands activities which commenced around 1967. Just 60 km south of Fort McKay is the urban service area of Fort McMurray, which has a population of 68,002 according to the 2021 Canadian census.

Fort McMurray’s and Alberta’s economy predominantly relies on oil sands extraction and mining. The First Nation has a long-established record of working collaboratively with the numerous oil sands companies in their traditional territory. Simultaneously, it works to preserve members’ ability to exercise their Indigenous and Treaty rights to practice traditional land uses as they have done since time immemorial. Traditional land use (TLU) often refers to practices established by Indigenous Peoples through generations of custom, belief, knowledge, and experience that are handed down for posterity through oral and experiential means (adapted from [49]). It is Fort McKay First Nation’s perspective that current oil sands reclamation and closure regulations and practices do not appropriately reflect, nor address Fort McKay First Nation’s culture, way of life and holistic land use needs.

Fort McKay First Nation (herein referred to as Fort McKay) has long participated in the advancement of mine closure and reclamation knowledge and practices in their traditional territory through consultation and engagement, community-led and collaborative research projects, and multistakeholder committees. For example, from 2001 to 2015, Fort McKay participated in the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA), a multistakeholder group with a mandate to make recommendations to the provincial government on how to manage the cumulative effects of regional development on air, land, water, and biodiversity in their homelands. Fort McKay community members, other Indigenous Nations, oil sands operators, and the Alberta government participated in a CEMA project called the Biodiversity Traditional Knowledge Study, which generated recommendations to implement a “Two-Roads Approach”. The Two-Roads Approach is an ethnoecological framework (i.e., place-based, and IK-informed) for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their IK and perspectives into reclamation planning [43].

In 2018, Fort McKay partnered with the Universities of Calgary and Waterloo to continue the journey to have their unique Cree and Dene perspectives and knowledges represented in the reclamation of their lands and waters. A multinational energy and oil sands company participated in the early phases of the project. Together, they created the Co-Reclamation Project, which supported a participatory and inclusive process [30] that empowered host communities with an equitable role in mine closure and reclamation planning decision-making. The Co-Reclamation Project used existing knowledge from the Biodiversity Traditional Knowledge Study to further understand and advance the Two-Roads Approach [43]. This made the project the first attempt to apply this ethnoecological methodology to reclamation and closure planning.

The project included multiple cultural paradigms and new rules of engagement intended to avoid the reinforcement of harmful old patterns, including the marginalization of voices and power dynamics. The first action was to form relationship-oriented partnerships, using local Indigenous protocols of requesting guidance from Elders, land users, and other Knowledge Holders and a shared research agreement that emphasized the co-creation of the research project. Then, research participants with a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge systems were sought to capture outlier input and increase the likelihood of the acceptance and ownership of the process and findings. Fort McKay identified Elder and youth community members of Cree or Dene descent, or both, with land use experiences. Comparatively, company staff with a range of corporate decision-making capabilities and experiences in sustainable mine closure and reclamation were found. Most company co-researchers identified as non-Indigenous, apart from a few individuals with lower decision-making capabilities (e.g., co-op students).

The work focused on and examined the following factors: relationship building through time spent on the land; knowledge exchange using cultural protocols; the creation of a project code of conduct to guide ethical intercultural behaviour and action [50]; an aligned vision for mine reclamation and closure [51]; how traditional land uses are planned for in current mine reclamation and closure plans in intercultural reclamation processes [30,52]; and community-based monitoring best practices.

Prior to this paper, and in keeping with ethical Indigenous research principles [39,44,53], the Co-Reclamation case study was conceptualized, developed, and implemented collaboratively between the Indigenous Nations, academics, and company representatives. The Indigenous Nation was affected by long-standing mining activities in their traditional territories, and so the project focused on improving or transforming the relationships between the Indigenous Nation and the relevant mining corporation. This paper emerged through this relationship-building process. The community co-researchers and representatives indicated that it would be useful to communicate the problematic patterns of behaviour that inhibit efforts to develop a positive relationship between mining corporations and impacted host Indigenous communities.

3.3. Methods

A systems-based archetype analysis was undertaken in order to systematically examine the patterns that emerged through approximately 5 years of discussion, observation, and data collection throughout the mine closure and reclamation case study. Archetypes are useful for gaining new knowledge into a phenomenon, for offering a basic structure for a model to be further constructed, and for gaining insights into patterns of behaviour which are reflective of the underlying structure of the system being studied. Hence, a systems-based archetype analysis was used to examine patterns within the case study. A literature review and comparison of ten different archetypes (e.g., [20,23]) led the authors to recognize that a “Shifting the Burden” Archetype most appropriately described the dynamics underlying the Co-Reclamation case study. A Shifting the Burden Archetype framework illustration was used as a starting point for dialogue and the identification of common patterns and dynamics of intercultural group work and problem solving within the Co-Reclamation Project (Figure 2). Using a series of focus group discussions (n = ~15–20) with Indigenous, mine company, and academic co-researchers between January 2021 and July 2023, common patterns and dynamics were identified and added to a draft illustration. The draft illustration was refined and validated during follow-up focus group discussions with co-researchers. Collaboration on the writing and reviews of this manuscript allowed Indigenous and academic co-researchers and authors to present the below analysis and discussion on how common problematic patterns of behaviour can inhibit efforts to transform the relationships between mining corporations and impacted host Indigenous communities.

4. Results

4.1. The Shifting the Burden Archetype

The following pattern of systemic behaviour, or systems archetype, has manifested in the context of much of the lead author’s work over the last 15 years, but most pointedly in the context of an in-depth, funded, long-term (~5 years), applied, collaborative research project focused on corporate Indigenous relations in mine reclamation. In the context of the Co-Reclamation case study, the variable in the centre of the diagram (see Figure 3), the need to develop relationships with Indigenous communities and trust (in the context of mine closure and reclamation outcomes), was the fundamental rationale of the project. As noted, this need has arisen on many fronts in the past 20 years or more as the result of several Canadian Supreme Court decisions, including the resulting Crown’s Duty to consult and accommodate, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, etc. For instance, Delgamuukw v. British Colombia [54] set a precent for how Treaty rights are understood in Canadian courts, affirming the recognition of oral testimony from Indigenous People and that Indigenous title rights include not only land, but the right to extract resources from the land. Furthermore, there is a legal obligation or duty to meaningfully consult and accommodate the concerns of Indigenous groups when activities may have adverse impacts on Aboriginal or Treaty rights (e.g., [54,55,56,57]). One of the key insights of this work is that this need to develop relationships and trust with Indigenous communities can be “addressed” in a multiplicity of ways, but for the purposes of this analysis, two categorical approaches to addressing this need can be articulated as typical or archetypal—a superficial approach (as depicted by blue connections in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) or a more fundamental approach to addressing the need (as depicted by green connections in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). This analysis will begin with a brief description of the basic “Shifting the Burden” Archetype (Figure 3) and then describe additional connections and feedback loops that interact with the core archetype behaviour. Figure 3 describes the basic “Shifting the Burden” Archetype, adapted from the original, generic archetype (Figure 2). Figure 4 describes the initial stages of the project as a window of opportunity or policy window opened to allow for experimentation with the fundamental solution or the relationship-based solution. Figure 5 then describes the implications of the policy window’s closure in the case study.

As illustrated in Figure 3, in loop B—Corporate Procedural Solution—the problem symptom is identified and a symptomatic solution is quickly applied, often with the “easiest, most available, previously used, [or] organizationally accepted… fix” [23]. The problem symptom appears to be resolved in the short term; however, the symptomatic solution creates a side effect (i.e., tangible results are prioritized over relationships), as seen in Figure 3. As a result, the problem is either worsened or remains the same as it was before the symptomatic solution was applied. Each time the symptomatic solution is applied, and the side effect occurs, the resources available to implement the fundamental solution dwindle, resulting in a positive or reinforcing feedback loop. Given this positive feedback, eventually the problem symptom occurs once again, leaving change agents with the decision to apply a symptomatic solution or address the issue holistically by confronting the problematic underlying structures of the system.

The fundamental solution, however, depicted as the “B—Relationship-Based Solution” loop in Figure 3, requires more resources to implement and often longer timelines than the solutions offered in the B—Corporate Procedural Solution loop. The fundamental solution, while perceptibly unattractive due to resource and time investment, solves not only the problem symptoms but, more importantly, addresses the root cause of the problem, thereby breaking the feedback loop altogether [1]. This archetype illustrates how addressing the symptoms rather than the fundamental underlying problems can lead to reliance on symptomatic solutions and even contribute to the problem [1]. While merely solving the visible symptomatic concerns is an attractive option, it fails to address the underlying structures that cause these visible concerns and will result in the continuation of a system that lacks resilience and produces problems. Braun [20] highlights that the desirability of this approach is logical, as the investment of time and resources differs greatly between short-term (symptomatic) and long-term (fundamental) solutions. However, in failing to implement long-term fundamental solutions, the system will face concerns in perpetuity and likely result in a greater investment of time resources in the long run.

4.2. Shifting the Burden: The Basic Archetype (See Figure 3)

As demonstrated in Figure 3, the blue connections represent the superficial approach, which begins with corporations attempting to address the need to develop relationships with Indigenous communities to manage the regulatory requirements of their projects. Understandably, this kind of approach results in an increasing pressure for the relationship to produce “results” while ensuring low-risk and politically correct outcomes and consequently can be seen to prioritize results over relationships.

This approach to ensuring that corporations’ projects meet regulatory requirements and are profitable results in increasingly “safe” attempts to work with Indigenous communities. This, in many ways, as far as the corporation and government regulatory bodies are concerned, meets the original need to develop relationships with Indigenous communities—in Figure 5 the need to develop relationships and trust with Indigenous communities (in the context of mine closure and reclamation outcomes).

One of the most important insights to be drawn from the use of this archetype is that over time, and the through repetition of this approach to addressing the original need, as illustrated by the delay connections in Figure 3, an unfortunate side effect or emergent property results. In this case, the respective Indigenous community becomes increasingly frustrated, resentful, and disappointed with the superficial, “safe” attempts by the corporation to work together that tend to prioritize results over relationships. This will likely be perceived to be a failure by the corporation, most likely resulting in some measure of resentment on behalf of the corporation since many attempts had been made to work together, albeit through superficial means. Over time (delays) this results in mutual fear, resentment, and anger between the corporation and the Indigenous community which will decrease the degree to which the corporation and the Indigenous community/Nation choose to prioritize building relationships over the achievement of results. This will lead to deep, meaningful, trust-based relationships being less and less likely and therefore undermine any attempts to undertake the more fundamental solution over time, as illustrated by the green feedback loop in Figure 3.

Herein lies one of the most important lessons to be drawn from this analysis: the repeated use of superficial resolutions (Corporate Procedural Solution) will almost inevitably lead to an undermining of any attempt to engage in a more fundamental resolution (Relationship-Based Solution). This is the core outcome of the “Shifting the Burden” archetype. The real value of this kind of archetype analysis is to build the capacity to identify these patterns of thought and behaviour, interrupt them, and then discerningly find alternatives [2,46].

4.3. Shifting the Burden: The Policy Window Opens (See Figure 4)

Beyond this set of core “Shifting the Burden” dynamics, the authors have identified other, related dynamics/feedback loops that have the propensity to influence the core “Shifting the Burden” Archetype (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). One such set of dynamics comes as a second outcome of the perceived failure at the top of Figure 3 and is illustrated in the expanded Figure 4 [2]. Figure 4 describes the dynamics of the early stages of the Co-Reclamation project as an important external parameter (Resource prices and/or pressure to build relationships) increases and opens a policy window [37].

The variable at the top of Figure 4—Perceived failure by corporation, resulting in resentment—can have two potential outcomes, depending on the external parameter, the social–political–economic context. The first potential outcome, and the one that lead to the genesis of this multi-year project, was that of the corporation coming from a place of perceived abundance, allowing for experimentation. That is, the project began in a context when resource prices were high, and the corporation was addressing this redirection of priorities in the context of economic or financial abundance, thus allowing the corporation to be willing to take risks and experiment on a more fundamental resolution (see green feedback loops in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). For instance, a policy window may open up, at least in part, due to the corporation coming from a place of perceived abundance, as well as other incentives for redirecting priorities (see [37]). This led to a reinforcement of the more fundamental or Relationship-Based Solution feedback loop.

As the Relationship-Based Solution is reinforced, attempts and experiments are undertaken to shift towards more idealized relationships, such as those articulated by Jimmy et al. [58] in their work, Towards Braiding, or other frameworks such as Two-Eyed Seeing [59] and Relational Systems Thinking [60]. Of course, these kinds of deep, meaningful, and trust-based relationships are exceedingly difficult to nurture and take a great deal of time and dedication, hence the Difficulty/Delay labels on the connections in the green feedback loops in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. However, if undertaken in a “good way”, this kind of work can, over time, more fully resolve the original need to develop relationships.

As with the more symptomatic resolution (Corporate Procedural Solution) discussed above, there is an unintended consequence or outcome of this feedback loop over time. As individuals involved in this deep and meaningful relationship building move through this long-term process, especially the non-Indigenous individuals, they will start to recognize (as the lead author did, numerous times) the need to engage in depth work, question assumptions, acknowledge privilege, and question broader institutions (see Figure 4). As this happens to an individual, two outcomes can occur through the process of coming to terms with the cognitive dissonance resulting from an acknowledgement of the complexity of the issues: (1) (following the blue feedback loop to the bottom-right of Figure 4) the individuals may become overwhelmed by the cognitive dissonance and unconsciously revert to ego-driven self-doubt and defensiveness, which can decrease the level of trust in relationships and decrease the degree to which we prioritize relationships over results, thereby increasing the mutual fear, resentment, and anger, then inadvertently reinforcing the Corporate Procedural Solution which can also feedback and increase the ego driven self-doubt and defensiveness; (2) (following the green feedback to the bottom left of Figure 4) over time, and through a great deal of individual effort (and likely depth or inner work), they will build the individual resilience to deal with the resultant complexity, uncertainty, and apparent (or real) paradox of the situation [61]. Building this capacity can lead to an increase in the development of deep, meaningful, trust-based relationships, as Elders, for instance, can see this capacity in individuals and respect it, which can increase the depth of these relationships.

Over time, hence the Difficulty/Delay labels in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, the development of deep trust-based relationships may lead to the development of innovative projects that demonstrate the importance of trust-based relationships and individuals building resilience to address uncertainty. And in so doing, again over time (see the Difficulty/Delay label in Figure 4), these could lead to leadership redirecting priorities and doing so in a way that may result in leadership realizing that by coming from a place of perceived constraint (see resource prices and/or pressure to build relationships in Figure 4 and Figure 5) they will always undermine their ability to engage in a more fundamental, relationship-based resolution.

4.4. Shifting the Burden: The Policy Window Closes (Figure 5)

The Co-Reclamation project progressed, and as the respective team members noted increases in the depth of meaningful, trust-based relationships during traditional Indigenous experiential activities together, those involved also would experience resistance to change towards the Relationship-Based Solution. Project participants experienced traditional IK sharing and decision-making protocols that differed from company knowledge sharing and decision-making processes and were, at times, more time-consuming relative to company processes. In response to the prospect of potential planning process changes, the companies attempted to potentially unconsciously emphasize the non-Indigenous, corporate approach and narrow the research activities part-way through the project (e.g., revisit the project scope, narrow the scope, reject new project ideas from the Indigenous community participants).

A Fort McKay co-researcher described that “there was a lot of delay and back and forth on what was considered to be in scope versus too much out of scope”. Another Fort McKay co-researcher suggested it was not “out of scope for a community that has to live with it every day” and that there was a need “to merge these scopes to work together”. The company also chose not to adopt new knowledge and approaches into their routine planning activities. Fort McKay co-researchers described such consultation and engagement experiences as one where “no one listens to community input”, so they “feel tired and worn out from giving so much and then the information given to companies just sits on the shelf or goes in the bin”. The Two Roads Research Team similarly captured “a certain disillusionment with the endless parade of TK studies that gather dust on shelves while science remains the principles for decision-making” [43] (p. 34).

Across sectors, it is common for organizations to believe they understand how to effectively engage in reconciliation with Indigenous rights holders without understanding that it inherently involves changes to existing power structures and approaches that were perceived as acceptable in the past, not small, safe engagement activities [62]. As one may expect, some measure of Indigenous community frustration from company attempts to potentially unconsciously control and minimize the Indigenous research agenda and to dismiss community research results would lead to worry or perceived failure by the corporation and the perspective that meaningful collaboration and anything beyond economic reconciliation (i.e., cultural, environmental) is too difficult. In these instances, despite the initial increased trust and depth of relationship resulting from including Indigenous Peoples, protocols, and their knowledges in research project decisions, this would lead to the corporation revisiting their interest in experimentation, as depicted by the blue feedback loop in the top left corner of Figure 5.

If the social–political–economic context had changed, that is, if resource prices dropped, as they did in this project, the degree to which leadership redirects priorities to the fundamental solution would also go down, and this would therefore result in an increase in the degree to which results are prioritized over relationships, thus increasing the strength of the symptomatic feedback loop (see blue feedback loops in Figure 5) or the Corporate Procedural Solution. When this systemic shift occurred, due to the dramatic changes in contextual factors, the project priorities shifted equally dramatically. There were several common outcomes of these shifts, in particular, the dismissal of key corporate and academic team members, no continued third-party research funding, and pulling-back on the willingness to push boundaries. Although graduate students were not prevented from finishing their degrees, there was no funding to support continued Indigenous community participation in research activities.

5. Discussion

Beyond the Policy Window

Now, some readers may be wondering, what would happen to a resource extraction company (that is a “person” under the law and whose modus operandi is simply to make money for their shareholders) that consistently engaged in the more fundamental resolution to this kind of relationship building with Indigenous communities? For a company to truly work through a journey of reconciliation, they would have to, for example achieve the following: reclaim the land in a way that supports traditional land use capabilities once again, which is already regulatory requirement; do so based on a truly collaborative and trust-based relationship with Indigenous communities and their Knowledge Holders; and go as far as to give the land back post-mine-closure. Some have argued that if a company was to go down this particular path and develop truly deep, meaningful, trust-based relationships with Indigenous communities, this would lead to significant increases in mine closure and reclamation costs that would undermine shareholders’ interests and the company’s profitability. Exploring that argument in more detail (i.e., an economically focused closure plan), we raise three lines of reasoning.

First, the cost of meaningfully engaging with local Indigenous communities on mine closure and reclamation is insignificant relative to mine operations and mine closure expenditures. The actual cost of executing reclamation is different than including Indigenous Peoples in planning for reclamation. The average cost to reclaim an oil sands mine ranges from CAD 10,000 to CAD 320,000 per hectare depending on the materials being reclaimed (e.g., treated or untreated fine tailings, coarse tailings, overburden, process water, etc.) and the ecosystem types (e.g., lake, forest, wetland) [61,63]. Experimental wetland reclamation costs have been cited as high as CAD 926,000 per hectare [63]. In contrast, a multistakeholder group costs less to operate annually than the cheapest average reclamation cost per hectare (i.e., <CAD 10 k). For example, it cost the CEMA approximately CAD 5 M per year to operate five working groups with industry, government, Indigenous community, and NGO representation, which included over one hundred participants, and to co-create reclamation and other cumulative effects guidance documents [64].

Beyond the cost of engagement, the inclusion of contributed IK and recommendations into future mine closure and reclamation plans is unlikely to translate into significantly increased reclamation operational costs. Mine waste will still need to be treated, landforms graded, soils moved and placed, and vegetation, wildlife habitats, and traditional land uses established as per provincial regulatory requirements. The inclusion and participation of Indigenous communities means there will be more local and relevant information to inform future plan iterations to increase the likelihood of achieving post-closure traditional land use capability, trust, and reclamation certification. Discussion points and recommended changes by Indigenous communities have typically included the following: holistic or landscape-level perspectives; cultural reconnection (e.g., community monitoring metrics); different ecosystem or ecosite and landform configurations (e.g., orientations that support natural wildlife migrations); different wildlife and revegetation strategies (e.g., more of different culturally significant species); and the renewal of special places and features (e.g., traditional trails, camps, traplines, etc.), which are currently lacking in the oil sands industry’s life of mine closure plans [50]. Thus, the cost of doing this work in a “good way” with Indigenous communities is unlikely to significantly increase the average operational cost.

Second, the majority of the oil sands footprint has yet to be reclaimed, so there is time to meaningfully engage Indigenous communities, like Fort McKay, in the closure and reclamation decision-making. To date, none of the mines have ceased operations, and only a small proportion of the mine-disturbed footprint has been reclaimed. As of 2020, 105,542 ha of the Fort McKay Traditional Territory has been disturbed by the oil sands mining industry since the 1960s, and 8% of that disturbed land has been permanently reclaimed (8730 ha) and certified reclaimed (104 ha) [65]. Third, the interconnected nature of mine, tailings, closure, and reclamation means that planning is already an iterative process with a standard practice whereby plans are customarily optimized when the latest information becomes available. Corporations have teams of professionals in place to routinely update mine closure and reclamation plans, which are integrated with life of mine plans, as developing information becomes available from research and monitoring, reclamation experience, stakeholder and Indigenous engagement, and other sources, and for meeting evolving regulatory obligations. We opine, therefore, that there are ample opportunities and corporate teams in place to meaningfully engage Indigenous communities, like Fort McKay, in the mine closure and reclamation process in a cost-effective manner. Why, then, is there such a lack of action towards the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and IK in mine closure and reclamation planning decisions and post-closure landscape outcomes?

While there is incentive in the regulatory framework to do better, to re-establish traditional land use capability [24,66,67], if a company were to go beyond that framework and systematically include Indigenous communities and their ways of knowing and being throughout the mine closure planning and decision-making processes, shareholders may not agree that this maximizes profits. This kind of meaningful, two-way learning and engagement process would be considered to go beyond regulatory requirements and therefore be detrimental to their competitive advantage and need to make a profit, meaning that it is untenable as a business decision. If a company were to do mine closure and reclamation in a “good way” or through an inclusive partnership with rights holders, over the long term, another company and their shareholders would have a competitive advantage, however modest.

Despite the history of Supreme Court decisions in Canada that have created and reinforced the need for the Crown’s Duty to meaningfully consult and accommodate First Nations (e.g., [54,55,56,57]), there remain systemic gaps which prevent its successful implementation in Canada. The systemic gaps are, in part, products of a lack of law and policy alignment between governments, dated company policies and practices, and inadequate policy enforcement and/or skills and knowledge [43,50,68]. At the heart of many claims to Indigenous self-determination is the demand that Indigenous Peoples be effectively consulted on any projects that impact on their ability to control their lives, economy, and cultural existence. For instance, in the province of Alberta, “The Government of Alberta’s Policy on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management, 2013” [67] necessitates that any development must “substantially address impacts on Treaty rights and traditional uses through a meaningful consultation process” [67] (p. 1). Reclamation is the main approach to mitigation of land disturbance and its subsequent impacts towards traditional land uses [24,67]. For many years, Fort McKay and other Indigenous communities have requested participatory reclamation planning processes and the co-creation of traditional land use methods, measures of success, and planning guidelines for mine closure and reclamation (e.g., [43,44,68,69]). Yet, a systemic review of traditional land use planning in mine closure and reclamation at seven oil sands mine projects operating in the traditional territory of Fort McKay First Nation by Daly [29,50] found that most of the plans held limited or no evidence that local Indigenous communities’ questions, concerns, and IK were adequately captured and used to inform closure and reclamation decisions. This disconnect illustrates that, as part of the delegated duty of Crown Consultation, Alberta oil sands mine companies are making decisions about mine closure and reclamation goals, target land uses, and reclamation design and timelines while excluding local Indigenous communities, their unique worldviews and rights, and relevant local IK [43,44,50,52]. Similarly, this trend is visible across the global mining sector [70,71,72]. Furthermore, there was little evidence that affected Indigenous communities received funding for their consultation or to conduct an independent technical review of the mine closure and reclamation plans in order to increase their confidence in the proposed mine closure outcomes and their capacity to be adequately consulted on mine projects [30,50].

Employees of the Alberta Energy Regulator likely require training and partnerships with Indigenous communities to effectively review mine closure and reclamation plans for the rights and traditional use needs required to enforce existing policy [50]. Similarly, mine employees require training and revised planning practices to address human rights policy and laws within their mine closure and reclamation plans. To close another systemic gap, international [27], national [25,73], and provincial [67] human rights laws and policies need to be translated into project-specific operating approval regulations and directives, since oil sands companies use them to guide the development of mine closure and reclamation plans [50]. Until then, Fort McKay co-researchers’ consultation and engagement experiences and sentiments will continue to be that “no one listens to community input”, meaning that they “feel tired and worn out from giving so much and then the information given to companies just sits on the shelf or goes in the bin”. The Two Roads Research Team similarly captured “a certain disillusionment with the endless parade of TK [Traditional Knowledge] studies that gather dust on shelves while science remains the principle for decision-making” [43] (p. 34). The lack of certainty on reclamation, biodiversity, cultural landscape outcomes, and the timelines for Fort McKay to exercise traditional use rights on their traditional territory affects confidence in Alberta’s oil sands mine closure and reclamation.

6. Conclusions

The first, and perhaps most important, practical implication of this work would be to use the Shifting the Burden Archetype to diagnose, interrupt, and practice discernment around typical or conventional corporate and government responses to relations with Indigenous communities/Nations. Even just by doing this, it may open new suites of potential approaches to building relationships with Indigenous communities/Nations.

Second, and realistically, based on this analysis, what can a company do to avoid the pitfalls associated with this systemic archetype? The authors defer to the work of Machado de Oliveira and Stein, where Machado de Oliveira quotes Stein’s Four Hs of relationship building—honesty, humility, humour, and hyper-reflexivity [74]. The Four Hs will be necessary in undertaking a kind of corporate psychotherapy to interrupt behaviour and practice discernment [74]. Once a company acknowledges the implications of the dynamic illustrated above, the best they can aspire to is to be completely honest about their position. Mining companies will negotiate impact benefit agreements with affected Indigenous communities, but these are only interested in economic negotiations and not necessarily economic and sustainability benefits. These mines will invest in consultation and engagement, but will not work through the more fundamental resolution to apply the gathered IK, perspectives, and other ways of learning towards reclaiming traditional land use capability, cultural landscapes, and homelands. That is, to be honest about the fact that they are a company, whose sole purpose is to make money for their shareholders, in a neo-liberal economy where government regulation is constantly being pulled back in order to let the market make key decisions, and that as a result, any attempt, however modest, to do anything that will not contribute to the profitability of the company will be seen as a detriment to leadership, even if that means that there is a risk that the cost of inadequately addressing Indigenous, Treaty, and land use rights in post-closure landscape outcomes may fall to Canadian taxpayers in the future. Therefore, companies should be humbler and more honest about what they, as a company can do in terms of relationship building and making claims to “indigenize”, “decolonize”, or contribute to “reconciliation”. There is no reconciliation with the “Wendigo”—so do not claim otherwise. This kind of honesty, openness, and humility must come with a sense of humour about the situation, to acknowledge that the situation is, in many ways, ludicrous. And finally, this requires a level of depth work on behalf of individuals involved, especially within companies and at the level of company leadership. This hyper-reflexivity involves an acknowledgement of assumptions, privilege, biases, archetypes, and as Jung would have described them, complexes—a form of individual and corporate depth therapy that may, as of yet, not exist. Kegan and Lahey’s work on “immunity to change” may gesture towards this, as does Machado de Oliveira’s “hospicing modernity” [62]. A discussion of these is beyond the scope of this paper and constitutes a clear avenue for fruitful future research.

This paper has broad implications within corporate and government Indigenous relations beyond this particular policy context, as these dynamics can be seen almost anywhere around the world with the continued use of fossil fuels and mineral and metal extraction for the energy transition.