In a recent workshop in South Africa, regulators, educators, community representatives, and three mining companies gathered to tackle a shared challenge. Although the groups approached the issue from different perspectives and did not always agree on the solutions, they all recognised that the future of the region depended on their ability to work together.

That meeting encapsulates a lesson I have learned repeatedly throughout my career: meaningful progress rarely comes from existing in echo chambers or working within silos. More often, it comes from bringing people together to navigate difficult realities and find practical ways forward.

That lesson is particularly relevant when discussing mining and other industries with difficult reputations. Conversations about these sectors often begin with a debate about whether organisations, governments, and development practitioners should engage with them at all. Mining, however, presents a challenge that we can’t ignore. Market demand and geopolitical priorities for the minerals required for electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, battery storage, and modern infrastructure will be extracted from somewhere.

Therefore, the most important question is often not whether mining will occur, but how mining companies and communities can work together to shape what comes next. The real question is not whether mining happens, but what remains when it is over. That depends on whether communities, governments and companies work together to shape a shared vision for the future and ensure benefits extend beyond the life of the mine. This is why I continue to advocate for bringing disparate parties to the table to figure out how to collaborate. It’s about actively engaging rather than assuming priorities and interests.

The term is simple, but its implications are significant.

Active engagement means moving beyond criticism for criticism's sake, stepping out of our silos to improve outcomes for all parties—mining companies, local and national governments, people and ecosystems. It means helping companies understand the standards they are expected to meet, giving them access to the data and evidence they need to make better decisions, and creating incentives that encourage investment in communities.

Most importantly, it means recognising that while mining companies cannot eliminate every negative impact associated with resource extraction, they can do far more to manage those impacts and contribute positively to local development when communities and local partners see them as part of the wider solution.

Working with the Impacts

That’s not to say that mining is benign.

Every mine changes the landscape around it. Operations affect local ecosystems, create pressure on infrastructure, alter employment patterns, and reshape the social fabric of communities. These impacts are real, and communities experience them every day. Yet major mining companies are also among the most heavily scrutinised and regulated businesses in the world. Investors, regulators, lenders, and host governments increasingly require rigorous reporting on environmental and social performance, while communities themselves expect a greater say in how projects are developed and managed to provide consent for project development.

As a result, many mining companies are investing more heavily than ever in biodiversity protection, local workforce development, community engagement, and long-term regional planning.

One of the most important shifts I’ve seen over the past several years is the move away from viewing social responsibility as a collection of short-term projects and towards strategic, long term investment to leave a legacy beyond the mine’s life. Instead of asking what benefits a company can deliver during the life of a mine, legacy investing focuses on what will remain after operations ramp down. Will local businesses be stronger? Will people have transferable skills that open opportunities in new sectors? Will communities have alternative sources of income? These questions become particularly important when mines reach closure, because communities that have depended on mining employment for generations face significant economic disruption if alternatives have not already been created. The future of the industry is that the companies that leave stronger communities and healthy ecosystems will be the ones that are invited to open future mines.

Many of the most successful programmes begin by helping communities build opportunities outside the mining sector altogether. Through our work with companies such as Nexa Resources in Peru, for example, we have focused on connecting communities with viable agricultural markets rather than leaving communities reliant on mining-related employment alone. That can involve linking agricultural producers with buyers, identifying markets and products with genuine growth potential, or supporting entrepreneurs as they develop businesses that will continue to operate long after the mine has closed and ensure that the community can continue to thrive.

Everyone at the Table

Achieving that outcome requires communities to be involved throughout the process. In many jurisdictions, engagement begins before a project is approved through mechanisms such as Free, Prior and Informed Consent processes with Indigenous groups. However, consultation should never be treated as a box-ticking exercise. Communities need ongoing opportunities to shape how investments are prioritised, identify emerging challenges, and inform decisions about the future of their region. The most effective programmes are built through dialogue and partnership, not through assumptions about what communities need.

Our work often involves acting as an honest broker between groups that do not regularly collaborate. We convene stakeholders, analyse market opportunities, coordinate partnerships, and help organisations align around shared objectives. The workshop in South Africa is one example of this approach in action. By bringing together government, schools, communities, and mining companies, the discussion shifted from individual priorities to a broader conversation about the region's economic future and the part each party could play in making that future more promising.

The same principles apply well beyond mining. Whether the industry in question is tobacco, alcohol, or another sector that attracts criticism, disengagement rarely improves outcomes for the people whose livelihoods are tied to it. Lasting change comes from understanding incentives, building partnerships, involving affected communities in decision-making, and helping organisations move beyond compliance towards more meaningful contributions.

The measure of success is not what is extracted from the ground. It is whether communities are stronger when extraction ends. Achieving that outcome requires governments, communities and companies to move beyond consultation alone and work together to build a future that outlasts the mine itself.