sustainable energy solutions - leading canada's transition to

Jessica Mankowski • Dalhousie UniversityEd Whittingham & Katie Laufenberg • The Pembina Institute

November 2007

Sustainable Energy Solut ions

Printed on 100% post-consumer

recycled paper

C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

Message from Ed WhittinghamProject LeadBACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

In November 2006, 30 peoplefrom the environmental NGO (ENGO) and public sectors

spent an afternoon with 30 people from the private sector to discuss and debate industry-ENGO relationships. The openand honest spirit of the forumallowed attendees to discuss their experiences with these relationships (both positive and negative), identify the under-lying conditions that make themsuccessful, and offer new ideas for promoting them. During the discussionan overarching question emerged: how can cross-sector collaboration helppeople to achieve sustainable devel-opment objectives of mutual interest?

By the end of the afternoon participants unan-imously agreed upon the need to keep thedialogue going, and recommended somenext steps: create a partnership model for useby many, and develop a resource centre withtools, Canadian case studies and multi-sectortraining. Participants also supported recon-vening the forum to create another opportuni-ty for more direct, peer-to-peer dialogue.

The Pembina Institute, host of the November2006 forum, committed itself to keeping thedialogue going. With the recommended nextsteps in mind, and with encouragement frommany forum participants, we decided to cre-ate a compendium of Canada-based casestudies of cross-sector, sustainable develop-ment partnerships, and to present our casestudy findings results at a 2007 forum, onlineand in this report.

Along the way we made a few other deci-sions to in some cases broaden and in othercases narrow the scope of our research. Wedecided to look specifically at “partnerships”instead of more broadly at “collaboration,”to give the compendium focus.1 In addition to having sustainable development goals,

FOREWORD CCrroossss--SSeeccttoorr PPaarrttnneerrsshhiippss ffoorr SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

The open and honest spirit of the 2006 forum allowed attendees to discuss their experiences with cross-sector relationships. PHOTO: ALISON JAMIESON, THE PEMBINA INSTITUTE

1 Our definition of a partnership is based on that used by The Partnering Initiative for the International Petroleum Industry Environmental ConservationAssociation’s (IPIECA) partnership publication, available at http://www.ipieca.org/activities/partnerships/index.html

http://www.ipieca.org/activities/partnerships/index.html

ii C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

partnerships for this compendium weredefined as relationships in which

❚ each partner has responsibility for different parts of the project and each contributes more than just financial resources;

❚ risk is shared among all partners;

❚ problems are jointly discussed andtheir solutions jointly explored;

❚ there is some agreement in place that outlines the expectations for thepartnership, and the responsibilitiesand commitments (more than just financial) of each partner.

We also broadened candidate cases toinclude industry-community and industry-synergy group partnerships.2 We knewthat there were very interesting examplesto draw from in these categories, andthat community and synergy group stake-holders are of equal (or greater) concernto companies as their ENGO stakehold-ers. Finally, we narrowed our focus bylimiting partnerships to those involvingresource extraction companies simplybecause this is the sector that thePembina Institute understands best.

By putting together this compendium, ourobjectives are three-fold: We hope thatthis report and the supporting web portalhttp://corporate.pembina.org/partner-ships serve as a tool for Canada-basedresource sector companies, ENGOs,landowner associations, communities andgovernments considering or entering intocross-sector partnerships. To do this, wehave tried to give the reader information

on the mechanics of the partnership, keysto success, and some of the challengespartners encountered along the way.

By bringing together the key playersfrom companies and their partners todebrief the partnership itself, we alsohope to capture and build institutionalmemory, while at the same time create anew opportunity for partners to reflect onhow things are going. With these twoparticular objectives in mind, our sup-porting web portal allows people to posttheir own comments on each of thecases, as another means of keeping thedialogue going.

Lastly, when taken together we hope thatthe case studies will show how cross-sec-tor partnerships can be used as vehiclesfor sustainable development in Canada.In an era when companies are increasing-ly labour constrained and civil society isincreasingly empowered, the businesscase for partnering strengthens each year.

AcknowledgementsKnowing who was involved in makingthis project a reality will give the readera sense of the process we followed.Original financial support from the J.W. McConnell Family Foundationand Environment Canada got us tothe point where we had the idea for theproject vetted and on paper. We offerour utmost gratitude to the six companieswho financially supported the projectfrom its conception: TransCanada,Catalyst Paper, Nexen, GlobalEnergy, ConocoPhillips Canada

Sustainable Energy Solutions

2 See “Trident Exploration and Fort Assiniboine” and “Sundre Petroleum Operators Group” case studies respectively for specific examples.

http://corporate.pembina.org/partner-ships

C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T i i i

and Trident Exploration. In additionto their financial contributions, represen-tatives from each company patientlyworked with our research team to select appropriate case studies, andeven introduce us to those involved in the partnerships we mutually chose.

Second, the Pembina Institute heartilythanks Jessica Mankowski for hersuperb research and writing and goodtemperament. Jessica is a Master inEnvironmental Studies candidate atDalhousie University, and is the leadresearcher and author on every casestudy presented here. Pembina was fortu-nate to discover Jessica had a mutualinterest in cross-sector partnerships earlyon in the research design process, inter-est that subsequently led to our own par-ticular NGO-academia partnership.

Third, we thank the many people whovolunteered their time to be Jessica’scase study interviewees. While too manyto name here, you will see the names ofa few of them quoted in the case studiesthemselves.

Lastly, several individuals at ThePartnering Initiative and theInternational Petroleum IndustryConservation Association providedtimely advice along the way. As a result,our publication and web portal is some-

what modelled after IPIECA’s Partnershipsin the Oil and Gas Industry report(http//www.ipieca.org/activities/partnerships/). Imitation is indeed the highest form of flattery.

Final WordThe reader might also notice that, withthe exception of the Catalyst Paper –WWF US Climate Savers case, all of ourcases are not only “made in Canada”approaches to partnering, they are morespecifically “made in Alberta” approach-es. Geography has a lot to do with it;the project began and developed steamin Alberta. Still, something about thepolitical, business, social and environ-mental landscapes here in Alberta hasfueled the development of, in my ownhumble opinion, various innovative cross-sector partnerships. For a reader withinterest in the topic and PhD aspirations, these landscapes beg further exploration.

Ed WhittinghamCo-Director, Corporate ConsultingThe Pembina Institute


iv C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

The opportunity to researchand write about thesedynamic and innovative

partnerships has been a wonderfulopportunity both personally andprofessionally. I hope that the benefits of this experience will beshared with many others as thesecases are read and consideredacross sectors. I also hope thatthese cases will, in some smallway, encourage further study ofcross-sector partnerships in supportof sustainable development.While the organizations that providedmaterial for the cases vary in size andsector, their partnerships consistently illus-trate the importance of building trust,accessing local knowledge, communicat-ing clearly and involving the right peopleno matter what the desired outcome. Itappears that when sustainable develop-ment issues are tackled through a processthat recognizes their inherent complexity,there is a much greater likelihood that theissue will be resolved through a sustain-able solution. If we can come up withmore sustainable solutions to existing andemerging environmental issues, then wecan start to build a better place to live. Ibelieve that the partnerships profiled in

this compendium do indeed support thecreation of a healthier and more sustain-able model of development.

I also believe the case study approach isthe best approach for studying partner-ships. Successful partnerships are multi-faceted, synergistic and contextual; char-acteristics can only be captured througha process that acknowledges a variety ofviewpoints and influences. Case studiesallow the personal experiences andreflections of partnership participants toguide the case, creating an intimate anddistinctive narrative of the partnership.Case studies also provide a context inwhich to consider partnership outcomesand learnings, a context that is crucial tounderstanding how a particular partner-ship works and how different partner-ships vary.

When I began to work on these cases Iwas aware that the case study processitself could affect interviewees. Theycould, according to the literature, beexpected to gain new appreciation fortheir partnerships, develop more confi-dence in communicating their successes,and even achieve meaningful personalinsights. And so, I humbly preparedmyself to shoulder the responsibility ofproviding participants with inspirationand instilling them with renewed confi-dence in their work, as well as being the


Message from Jessica MankowskiLead Author

C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T v

bearer of insights and the catalyst oforganizational change.

As a result of researching and writingthese cases, what I expected to happendid not occur. Instead, I believe that Imay have been the one most influencedby the case study process. I have had tochallenge my own assumptions aboutcompanies and non-profits, about peo-ple’s motivation and sincerity, and abouthow partnerships across sectors mightaffect the planet. I sheepishly recognizedthat I shared the biases and assumptionsmany of the interviewees had initiallyheld. I too had to release my preconcep-tions and listen to the experiences andinsights of people from different sectors.Inspired by their willingness to listen,engage and collaborate, I have beenable to change the way I think aboutpartnerships and about my own potentialas an agent of change. This was, I wouldsay, a truly significant personal insight.

I would like to thank all the intervieweesfor their participation and continued sup-port as the cases were written and edit-ed. Their commitment to sharing theirexperience is an eloquent example ofwhat sustainable development looks like.Sustainable development isn’t somethingyou say, it’s something you do. Theireffort and time is most sincerely appreci-ated. Thank you to Ed Whittingham andKatie Laufenberg at the Pembina Institutefor all their research, editing and won-derful good cheer. Thanks also to myfamily for their impeccable advice andunwavering support.

Jessica MankowskiMaster in Environmental Studies candidateDalhousie University


vi C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

Message from Ed Whittingham, Project Lead..........................................................i

Message from Jessica Mankowski, Lead Author.....................................................iv

Alberta Ecotrust Foundation .................................................................................1

Trident Exploration and Fort Assiniboine................................................................7

The Clean Air Strategic Alliance .........................................................................11

Sundre Petroleum Operators Group....................................................................17

World Wildlife Fund and Catalyst Paper.............................................................23

Suncor-Pembina Partnership ...............................................................................27


Table of Contents

The Alberta EcotrustFoundation“Suits and Roots” Together Funding Environmental Initiatives

In the early 1990s there was asurge in oil and gas developmenton the south eastern slopes of the

Rocky Mountains. Only an hour’sdrive from the large population cen-tres of southern Alberta, public scruti-ny and media attention were keenlyfocused on resource development.There was a general climate of antag-onism between the non-profit and private sector as each sought to fulfilltheir apparently conflicting objectives.

BACKGROUNDIn spite of this climate, in 1991, individualswith the Pembina Institute and Petro-Canadacollectively decided to create a space for

corporations and environmental non-govern-mental organizations (ENGOs) to cometogether to identify common ground, developtrust, build capacity and support grassrootsenvironmental projects in Alberta. At thattime, Rob Macintosh, a co-founder and thenExecutive Director of the Pembina Institute,and Michael Robertson, the Senior DirectorEnvironment and Safety at Petro-Canada atthe time, had been working on the sameissues on opposite sides of the table foryears. They had developed a respectful andtrusting relationship based on their sharedvalues around environmental issues. They rec-ognized that these values were shared acrosssectors, but that there was no neutral platformto promote consensus dialogue and decision

ECOTRUST MISSION – Alberta Ecotrust Foundation builds partnershipsthroughout Alberta between environmental organizations, corporationsand others who support environmental action to❚ fund and support effective grassroots environmental projects❚ build capacity and sustainability in the voluntary sector❚ promote the environment as the foundation of a healthy community.CCrroossss--SSeeccttoorr PPaarrttnneerrsshhiippss ffoorr SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

Alberta Ecotrust funded the Crowsnest Conservation Society’s efforts tolet local middle-school students learn in and about the natural environ-ment in which they live. PHOTO: COURTESY OF ALBERTA ECOTRUST FOUNDATION

PAT LETIZIA (Executive Director, Alberta Ecotrust):

We speak ENGO and corporate and understand

the community needs of both.... We’re a bridge between

the roots and the suits.”

making. They also recognized that there was a lack of funding for Albertaenvironmental groups. After spending 18 months promoting the idea in the corporate and environmental community,they succeeded in convincing people that“Alberta Ecotrust” could work. In 1992Alberta Ecotrust Foundation was officiallyformed by the coming together of eightENGOs and eight energy sector com-panies; it has since grown to include 14 organizations from each sector.

HOW ALBERTAECOTRUST WORKSThe purpose of the Alberta EcotrustFoundation is to provide grants to envi-

ronmental non-profit organi-zations. Unlikemany grantingfoundations,Alberta Ecotrustalso accepts

applications from groups that are notregistered charities, thus inviting partici-pation from a greater diversity of appli-cants and making the funds accessibleto a wider group of projects. The foun-dation raises money by soliciting dona-tions from Alberta Ecotrust partners,business donors and the public, and iswholly dependant on these donations tooperate. These donations are distributedtwice a year in grants to environmentalnon-profit groups. Each project is thenmonitored by a partner, reviewed atspecified intervals, and evaluated uponcompletion of the project to measure thegrant’s effectiveness.

Groups apply to the foundation by submitting a proposal. The grant reviewcommittee, comprising representativesfrom all partner organizations, and withequal representation from both the cor-porate and ENGO sectors, thoroughlyreviews each proposal submitted.

REASONS FOR SUCCESSThe neutrality of both the grantingprocess and of the foundation’s structureallows members to identify each other as individuals who share common goals,as opposed to as representatives of particular sectors. Neutrality is achievedin several ways:

Biases left at the doorMembers are asked to leave their biasesat the door in the understanding that the

GUY GREENAWAY (Executive Director –CPAWS): “The partnership approach was chosen very deliberately to involve the groups thatwere antagonistic, the groups that were havingtrouble communicating and getting together.There was actually a lot of common ground interms of the issues that they wanted to address....”

2 C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T


AlbertaEcotrust

connects withAlbertans during the

2007 Calgary

Stampedeparade.

PHOTO: COURTESY

OF ALBERTAECOTRUST

FOUNDATION

GARRY MANN (General Manager, Safety,Environment and Occupational Health – Nexen):“There are, at the grassroots community level...environmental issues that we can tackle together, and if we want to disagree on variousissues... that’s fine; we’ll take our position, they’ll take their position, but along the waywe’ll know that there is this other organizationwe’re involved in where we’re actually workingon common objectives.”

foundation represents aneutral ground for dia-logue and debate onwhich to build consensus.The Alberta Ecotrustprocess requires eachmember to consider allother participants as teammembers, despite whatmay be happening outsideof the foundation.

High levels of peer-to-peer interactionOnce a proposal has beenaccepted for consideration,small ad-hoc committeesmade up of three members(one corporate representa-tive, one ENGO represen-tative and one AlbertaEcotrust administrator) inter-view the applicant face-to-face or via telephone toget a real sense of the group, their issuesand their strengths. The entire grantreview committee later assembles for anall-day selection process during whicheach subcommittee presents the applica-tion they have reviewed. The grantreview process demands active engage-ment, and members are immersed in anexperiential education process that high-lights the common ground they have

cleared and the benefits of working withpartners from another sector. The reviewprocess provides a space for honest dis-cussion about what matters and why,and builds a sense of familiarity andcamaraderie as the committee successful-ly collaborates and cooperates to reviewand approve projects. Members buildtrusting relationships with one anotherand ultimately with the grantees as well.

C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 3


Westmount Elementary in Strathmore, Alberta used an Alberta Ecotrust grant to naturalize their school yard. PHOTO: COURTESY OF ALBERTA ECOTRUST FOUNDATION

PAT LETIZIA (Executive Director – Alberta Ecotrust):

“There are many organizations that call their donors their part-

ners. Our donors ARE our partners: they invest time and people,

they contribute to the decision making of our organization,

they sit on the board, they contribute to grant and policy

decisions; so everything we’ve done as an organization is in

collaboration with both sectors.”

Recognizing and servicing the needs of each sectorAlberta Ecotrust’s mission explicitly refersto the need to develop the capacity ofthe voluntary sector. This is accomplishedthrough professional development oppor-tunities, honorariums to attend work-shops, and research projects focused onimproving capacity within the sector.Alberta Ecotrust provides yearly reportsto its corporate partners to maintainaccountability and clearly communicatethe value created and change leveragedthrough their contributions. Because thefoundation understands the mandates ofeach sector, it can effectively buildbridges between them and maintain their support and participation.

Balance of powerThe balance of power between sectorssupports neutrality; each organizationhas one representative and there are anequal number of corporate and ENGOpartners. Each representative has onevoice, regardless of their organization’s

financial contribution to Alberta Ecotrust.If there is a perceived conflict of interest,for example when the proposal of a representative’s organization is beingconsidered, that representative will leave the table during the discussion.

Effectiveness at protecting the environmentThe environment is a public interest, andthe Alberta Ecotrust program is effectiveat protecting it. Alberta Ecotrust is vigi-lant about remaining connected to theprovincial environmental climate withregard to public opinion and policyissues, as well as to the views of its mem-bers and stakeholder community. Thefoundation has conducted three partnerevaluations over the past 15 years toreview its focus and mission, and hasconducted a number of research projectson environmental priorities, capacitybuilding and effectiveness within the vol-untary sector. Alberta Ecotrust is currentlyengaged in reviewing and renewing itsinternal evaluation measures and creat-ing new evaluation processes for boththe granting program and the partneringprocess. Members are confident thattheir efforts produce meaningful gains for Alberta’s environment.

ECOTRUST OFFERSVALUE TO MEMBERSIn addition to creating tangible environ-mental value within Alberta, the AlbertaEcotrust partnership offers members the

CONNIE ATKINSON (Corporate Safety, Environment

and Social Responsibility – Nexen): “Well, certainly

our reputation with our external stakeholders... and,

for me, some of the contacts that I’ve made... I’ve

been able to contact them for other parts of my job

and that’s been really beneficial....”



GUY GREENAWAY (Executive Director – CPAWS): “You get

a clear sense of where the problems in the whole process are,

and that they may not rest with the person or entity engaging in

the activity, but with the regulator of that activity. That becomes

abundantly clear in many cases.”

opportunity to experience successfulworking relationships outside of its own sector, thus producing several related benefits.

Peer-to-peer relationshipdevelopmentMembers develop strong peer-to-peerrelationships through their work togetheron the board and grant review commit-tees. The structure of some corporationsand ENGOs may make it difficult toquickly identify the appropriate communi-ty contact for specific issues or geo-graphic regions. Interactions and rela-tionships through Alberta Ecotrust allowmembers to access a peer regardless ofsector, who can then guide them to theright person. These relationships aredescribed as one of the greatest benefitsby members of both sectors.

Members gain a broader perspective on environmental issuesAs a result of the collaboration androbust discussion around the grant mak-ing process, the types of challenges facedby each sector within the entire life cycleof a specific problem become clear.Often, it becomes apparent that the issuemay not necessarily be with the organiza-tion engaging in a particular activity, butwith the actual environmental impact andregulation of that activity. This realizationhas fostered a further sense of alignmentand shared purpose among members. It has become clear over the years that

each sector generally recognizes andrespects the role of the other.

Member environmental groups learn how to design more effective environmental projectsBy fully participating in the grantingprocess, member environmental grouprepresentatives have an insider’s per-spective on how to create an effectivegrant proposal and design strategic andsuccessful projects. As well, ENGOs areexposed to the projects and developmentsoccurring in other environmental fieldsand across the province, which encour-ages the development of stronger peer-to-peer networks outside of Alberta Ecotrust.

CHALLENGES The value added to both corporate andENGO partners is not without some trade-offs. Obviously, groups from both sectorshave to commit significant staff time forAlberta Ecotrust to function effectively. Forenvironmental groups with limited staff,this can be a diversion away from theircore activities. For corporations, the paceand scale of the Alberta business land-scape today create similar labour pres-sures, in spite of their larger staff bases.

Both groups also put their reputations onthe line among some actors from bothsectors. The idea of corporations andENGO groups working together on environmental issues continues to createsome discomfort and mistrust among a



GUY GREENAWAY (Executive Director – CPAWS):

“So any opportunity to be on the other side of the table

[for non-profits], where they’re reviewing applications, gives

them a much better insight into what makes a good proposal,

what’s going to work.”

few groups in both sectors. In particular,there remains a perception among cer-tain environmental groups – especiallyoutside of Alberta – that Alberta Ecotrustis merely a place to “green” the moneyof certain companies. Some individualshave claimed that the foundation is runby the oil and gas industry that makes allof the granting decisions and determineshow funds will be spent. While untrueand impossible given the structure andgovernance of Alberta Ecotrust, neverthe-less it remains a perception challengethat the foundation must contend with.

THE FUTURE OF THEALBERTA ECOTRUSTFOUNDATIONAlberta Ecotrust will continue to fulfill itsmission by catalyzing the environmentalmovement in Alberta, securing increasedfunding, and providing service and infor-mation to other foundations. It is in thisniche, as a service provider, that AlbertaEcotrust may have found another way tosupport the environmental non-profit sec-

tor. By fostering effectiveness at the foun-dation level, Alberta Ecotrust maybecome the medium through which addi-tional and more significant environmentalgrant making is successfully nurtured.

Members of both sectors point to theneed for improved evaluation of bothgrant effectiveness and of the partneringprocess. The way grants for environmen-tal projects are evaluated is an inherentlycomplex process. It involves the develop-ment of appropriate measures, indicatorsand timelines that adequately capture theeffects and relationships within a givenproject. Yet understanding how and whycertain projects have succeeded is inte-gral to the foundation’s effectiveness as a grant maker. In addition to the processby which grants are distributed, theprocess by which partners are engagedwill also require focused attention. AsAlberta Ecotrust increases its fundingbase, it will need to have a clearerunderstanding of its strengths and weaknesses. If the foundation’s model is replicated,1 insight into the partneringprocess itself will prove immensely valuable as the process is scaled up.


“I think in Alberta, more than anywhere else, industry

and ENGOs are aligned together on the need for

good government. They both want government to

be more decisive, to create a regulatory environment

that is fair and consistent so everyone knows what

you can and can’t do....”


“We’ve started to focus more critically on our future role, while

continuing to focus on community education and engagement.

We need to ensure that our work remains of critical importance to

our partners, our grantees and the protection of the environment.”



1 Some of the corporate partners with operations in other provinces have suggested a Saskatchewan Ecotrust, or even a national Ecotrust.

Trident Explorationand Fort AssiniboineNot Your Average Christmas Basket

T rident Exploration Corporation,founded in 2000, has its head-quarters in Calgary, Alberta.

The company’s main focus is naturalgas exploration and development, largely from coalbed methane. Tridentis mainly interested in the WesternCanadian Sedimentary Basin, whichhas a significant concentration of highgas content coal.Many rural communitieswithin the region are identified as keystakeholders, and are engaged throughthe company’s Community Engagementand Social Responsibility division.

BACKGROUNDTrident has deliberately crafted a corporateculture that supports commitment to sustain-able community development. Its commitmentis driven by the worldview of two of the senior founders of Trident who worked overseas in the oil and gas industry. Whilethere, these two individuals developed anappreciation of the potential negative impactsthat resource development can have on host communities, as well as ways theseimpacts could be managed or mitigated.Upon returning to Canada, they applied this insight when creating Trident’s particularapproach to community development.

Asset BasedCommunityDevelopment(ABCD)The ABCD modelfocuses on identifying and supporting theskills that exist within a given community torealize a shared vision of development.1 Inthis way it emphasizes strengths, rather thanweaknesses, and focuses on the active partic-ipation of community members to create solu-tions that build upon those resources locallyavailable. Trident’s ABCD model is a three-step process: map assets, create a sharedvision and mobilize local assets in support ofthe vision. As part of the process, communitymembers work closely with Trident employeesto ensure the projects remain grounded in the local reality and are sustainable beyondTrident’s projected stay in the community.

ABCD in Action: The Christmas Basket ProgramTrident’s Christmas Basket Program providesan example of this community developmentphilosophy in action. During the holiday sea-son companies regularly send their businesspartners and contacts baskets that typicallyinclude premium wines, chocolates and evenski passes or tickets to upcoming concerts.Led by Dr. Glynn Davis, Trident’s Community

GLYNN DAVIS (Manager, Community Engagement and SocialResponsibility, Trident): “So that’s what we took a look at, getting gas butat the same time understanding people’s issues. The corporate cultureevolved right from the beginning to support that, so it was possible fora lot of the employees to accept that this was the way we do things.”

1 ABCD is the approach developed and championed by John McKnight and John Kretzmann of Northwestern University. More information ontheir work and on ABCD is available through the ABCD Institute at Northwestern (www.northwestern.edu/ipr/abcd.html).

CCrroossss--SSeeccttoorr PPaarrttnneerrsshhiippss ffoorr SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

Students from Morrin school put baskets together for Trident’sChristmas Basket Program.PHOTO: COURTESY OF TRIDENT EXPLORATION CORPORATION

Engagement and Social ResponsibilityManager, the company decided that a creative approach to its Christmas baskets could help to serve both needsof community development and holidaycorporate giving.

Program Origins and How It WorksWhen Trident began to develop its inter-ests in the central Alberta region, Davis’team began a community consultationprocess to engage stakeholders in thecreation of an ABCD project. As a resultof these consultations in the Fort Assini-boine area, Trident knew that there wasa shared desire within the community to create educational and employmentopportunities for youth while supportinglocal economic development. Davis and his team wondered, what if Tridentengaged Fort Assiniboine high schoolstudents to put together its Christmas

baskets, andthese basketswere made upexclusively oflocally sourcedartisan goods?The idea forthe ChristmasBasket projectwas born.

Trident then approached the principal atthe Fort Assiniboine high school to proposethe program and identify potential champi-ons within the school. With buy-in secured,Trident used the community farmer’s markets,an asset identified during the communitymapping activity, to recruit local artisans to provide items for the gift baskets. Tridentalso identified the existing entrepreneurshipprogram at Fort Assiniboine public school,and in subsequent years at Morrin School,as a platform upon which to provide a hands-on experience for local youth in project development.

Following the contact with Fort Assini-boine, a high school entrepreneurship program curriculum was developed byUniversity of Calgary education studentsinterning with Trident. The education pro-gram was then delivered in conjunctionwith local teachers as part of the existingentrepreneurship class at the high school.The high school students learned projectmanagement, planning and budgetingwithin the context of the Christmas BasketProgram. They established costs and pricing, and designed the baskets. Finally,students were provided with the materialsneeded to assemble a total of 100 baskets,putting to use all the entrepreneurshipskills they had been learning in class.

BENEFITSThe program has benefited both internaland external stakeholders. Because of the very positive feedback it hasreceived from the gift basket recipients,Trident has been able to promote itself as a company that practices effective sustainable community development, andone that consistently considers how it cancreate opportunities for its communities.Local artisans are able to promote their

LOIS ROBINSON (Artisan): “It’s a great

opportunity for me to advertise my wares....

They pay me for my product and I also get to

advertise, so you really can’t get a better deal.”

GLYNN DAVIS (Manager, CommunityEngagement and Social Responsibility, Trident):“Within oil and gas there is this notion that engi-neering and earth sciences have got that rigour,but when you come to the social sciences itsmore of a pray and spray approach.... A lot ofcompanies do take an initiative, and if it’s agood one and it works they aren’t entirely clearwhy it worked.... If it doesn’t work, they can’treally pull it apart to understand the dynamics.”



Trident’s ChristmasBasket Program

is an example ofthe Asset Based

CommunityDevelopment

philosophy in action.

PHOTO: COURTESY OFTRIDENT EXPLORATION

CORPORATION

products to new markets without havingto travel or spend money on marketingand transportation, and are given incentive to continue their artisan trades. The schools that have been involved inthe program have been able to providetheir students with an experiential oppor-tunity that develops entrepreneurship and project management skills. As well,by offering these extra cou rse credits,the schools have been able to increasetheir provincial funding.

REASONS FOR SUCCESSA number of unique characteristics haveenabled Trident to successfully develop the Christmas Basket Program with its Fort Assiniboine partners. First, seniorleadership provides Trident’s communityoutreach department with almost fourtimes the level of funding found in companies of similar size. The develop-ment of a long-term, complex and context-sensitive program like this requires signifi-cant time commitment, which in turnrequires a significant financial investment.

The Trident staff that engages with thelocal community are a second importantcharacteristic that makes this programsuccessful. Community members are willing to work with the companythrough this more complex relationshipbecause they trust the individuals whoare consulting and implementing theChristmas Basket Program. This trust isbuilt through the consistent presence ofthese individuals in the community, andthe corporate willingness to engage indialogue and to go above and beyondregulations in other areas, such as thosedealing with the noise level of its pumps.

A third unique characteristic of Trident isthat, unlike most other companies, it usesa community development approachgrounded in development theory andcontinuous improvement. ABCD providesa process for Trident to evaluate the suc-cess of its community engagement, recog-nize the drivers and enablers of success-ful projects, and replicate these successesthroughout their development programs.

CHALLENGESTrident’s approach to community develop-ment, and to the Christmas Basket Programitself, is not without risks and challenges.Complex engagement of any kind meansthat partners are more vulnerable to eachother, reputation and resources are moretightly meshed and responsibility is shared.This means that as the program develops,and responsibility for the production of the baskets is given to the community, further elaboration of goals and outcomesis required. Such elaboration is now contained in a Memorandum of Under-standing, which clarifies the roles andresponsibilities of each partner.

Because the ABCD approach places asignificant emphasis on the importanceof context and local knowledge, the programs developed through this processcannot be easily reproduced. The ideaof creating a model that can simply be replicated across all communities is impossible; such models require consistent investments of human andfinancial resources. This means there will always be an apparently dispropor-tionate input of these resources to develop and implement this kind ofapproach to community development.

KYLA FISHER (Liaison Lead, Community Engagement and Social

Responsibility, Trident): “The effort is up front, but once you get to

know who’s doing what, and once the program is designed to the

extent that now the school is taking the program on, and the students

are identifying the people, there’s less human resource time.... [The

Christmas Basket Program is] equivalent to walking to the store and

ordering wine like everyone else.”



The MultiplierEffectDavis thinks that Trident’sapproach to communityand stakeholder engage-ment has had a signifi-cant effect on other companies in the sector.He points to the changein terminology, such thevocabulary surroundingcommunity accountabili-ty and consultation, as a direct consequence of Trident’s approach.He has also noticed a

dramatic increase in the commitment topublic education in the coalbed methanefield since Trident began its programs.Davis believes that Trident was the firstcoalbed methane company to make public education a non-negotiable partof project development, and that it isnow a common practice among themajority of coalbed methane companies.

Within the oil and gas sector, Tridentexpects that other companies may adopt a modified version of the ABCDapproach. While it is unlikely that otherorganizations will be able to adopt the

entire model,elements maybe successfullyadopted with-out completebuy-in to thephilosophybehind the

process. In either case, by creating newnorms against which other resource companies are measured, Trident hopesto influence the way energy sector com-panies engage the communities onwhich they depend to operate.

In 2007, the program will be run out of the local youth centre and will beassociated with Junior Achievement, a non-profit entrepreneurial education program. This format will allow greaterflexibility than previously, giving studentsfrom different schools the opportunity to participate while continuing to earncredit hours and experience, as well as monies for their schools.

The relationship between Trident and the community is strong. Even those whowere not directly involved in the programhave offered to help in subsequent yearsand to produce products or provideother means of supporting the program.

Now in its fourth year the program hasevolved to include more local artisans, a well-developed curriculum and a thoroughly documented process. Thisallows new Trident employees to bequickly brought up to speed on projectprocedures. While the initial investmentof human resources was significant, the program now requires much less efforton Trident’s part because the communityis able to manage it and produce thebaskets nearly independently. The resultis a sustainable source of community-produced gift baskets that cost Tridentthe same price as traditional gifts but are of a much higher value.

DR. DON SCHIELKE (past Principal, Morrin School): “It was the quality of the peopleTrident sent, such good quality people. They honestly wanted to help and I thought it was just great, really great. Certainly we weren’t getting help from other sources.”

GLYNN DAVIS (Manager, CommunityEngagement and Social Responsibility, Trident):“Companies won’t want to jump whole hog intoour approach, but what will slowly happen isthey’ll end up designating someone to do this,or it will be the external construct against whichthings are projected.... What has been thebiggest affirmation is that it has become fairlywidely adopted, it’s become much more the norm.”

1 0 C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T


Trident reps Sue Wills and

Kyla Fisher celebrate

“wrapping up” the first Christmas

Basket Project.PHOTO: COURTESY OFTRIDENT EXPLORATION

CORPORATION

The Clean Air StrategicAllianceMultistakeholder Collaboration for Clean Airsheds

The Clean Air Strategic Alliance(CASA) is an Alberta-basedmultistakeholder policy forum

that brings together representativesfrom industry, government and non-profit organizations to address airquality issues. It was established by aministerial order in 1994 as a newway to manage air quality issues inAlberta. CASA recommends strategiesto assess and improve provincial airquality, and uses a consensus model toreach its goals. The alliance acts as anadvisory committee under the

Environmental Protection and Enhance-ment Act and the Department ofEnergy Act. Core operating funds are received from the provincial government, with additional supportprovided by a variety of non-profitorganizations, government bodies and industry supporters.

BACKGROUNDIn Alberta during the early 1990s there wasconsensus across sectors that environmentalissues were becoming increasingly complex.At that time various non-profit groups wereurging the provincial government to beproactive in addressing air quality issues specifically. Concerns around air quality had been brought to public attention earlierduring the 1982 Lodgepole blow out 1

CASA VISION: The air will be odourless, tasteless, look clear and

have no measurable short- or long-term adverse effects on people,

animals and the environment.

1 In 1982 an Amoco Canada sour gas well blew, and burned out of control for 68 days. During this time 150 million cubic feet of sour gas flowed perday, with a hydrogen sulfide content of 28 per cent. Two blowout specialists were killed following the accident, and 16 people were hospitalized. Attimes the rotten-egg smell of the hydrogen sulfide content in the gas could be detected as far away as Winnipeg. For a short description of the accident,see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry_in_Canada_(natural_gas).


CASA’s Electricity Team, comprised of industry and non-governmentgroups, worked together to develop provincial regulations for coalplant emissions. PHOTO: MATTHEW DANCE

MIKE KELLY (Director, Environment, Health and Safety -

TransAlta): “The Clean Air Strategy Program document

was a great document and nobody who was involved

with that wanted it to sit on the shelf and collect dust, so

they needed an implementation mechanism....”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry_in_Canada_(natural_gas

and were therefore of particular interest.After a government-led two-year processof engagement involving stakeholdersfrom all sectors, the Clean Air StrategyProgram (CASP) was created. The program outlines a vision, an imple-mentation framework (the Clean AirManagement System, or CAMS), and a series of emission reduction goals toaddress air quality issues in Alberta.

The stakeholders involved in the forma-tive stages of the program believedstrongly in its objectives and process,

and pushed the provincial government to create theClean AirStrategicAlliance(CASA), themechanism

through which the program is now implemented.

ConsensusBuilding and EvaluationTo create long-lastingand appropriate airquality policy recom-mendations, the CASPrecommended a con-sensus model of deci-sion making; this hascome to be one of thedefining characteristicsof CASA. The process

of reaching consensus requires that par-ticipants set aside preconceptions, buildtrust and goodwill, and search for com-mon ground upon which to build a newunderstanding of the issue. The CAMSprocess encourages stakeholders toclearly identify their needs and wants,and then reconsider them in light of theknowledge and insight gained from inter-acting with other stakeholders. CAMSexplicitly names the steps involved inidentifying, addressing and creating rec-ommendations for air quality issues.CAMS supports consistent and defensi-ble decision making, and outlines thevarious steps involved. A strength of thesystem is that it has regular review andrenewal built into the implementationframework. Changes were made toCAMS when it was last reviewed by theCASA membership in 2005. Thesechanges clarified certain procedural

JILLIAN FLETT (Executive Director – CASA):

“I think it was recognized that there is more

accountability and buy-in if people are involved

in coming up with the recommendations.”



Senior AssociateConsultant, TomMarr-Laing and

other CASA mem-bers tour a windfarm in Alberta.

PHOTO: COURTESY OF CASA

TOM MARR-LAING (Senior Associate Consultant– Pembina Institute): “I think the real politik wehave to deal with here in Alberta forced activistparties to look at how else they could actuallyinfluence the levers of power – both political and industrial – in a way that’s progressive forenvironmental protection. Bodies like CASAemerged from that paradigm....”

steps. For example, stakeholders identi-fied prioritization as an ongoing processas opposed to a discrete step. TheCAMS was thus revised to acknowledgethat a constant influx of new informationand changing external circumstancescould affect how best to treat an issue.

The Electricity TeamCASA creates project teams to addressstatements of opportunity that have beenaccepted by the Board. The CASAElectricity Team is one such team, andprovides an example of how CASAdeals with a specific air quality issue.During the early 2000s, a companybegan building a new coal-fired powerplant. The Alberta government, alongwith the non-profit community, realizedthat the regulations around the construc-tion and operation of this type of planthad not been examined in years sincethere had been little development in thesector. The government quickly beganworking on a new set of regulations, trig-gering public outcry at the lack of consul-tation and transparency in the regulatorydevelopment process. Recognizing thedemand for a more inclusive regulatoryprocess, the government turned the issueover to CASA. CASA was charged withdeveloping new provincial regulationsfor coal plant emissions, with the under-standing that if it could not reach a con-sensus, the government would createnew regulations independently.

The government presented CASA with astatement of opportunity to trigger theconsensus-building process. As oftenhappens at the beginning of new CASAprojects, the Electricity Team went on an

overnight retreat to identify the group’sobjectives and build general knowledgeabout coal power plant emissions. Whileboth industry and environmental NGOswere concerned with reducing harmfulemissions, mitigating environmentalimpacts and regulating future plant devel-opment, the industry members were alsoconcerned with protecting their largecapital investments. Industry was alsolooking for policy and economic incen-tives to support its investment in environ-mental infrastructure. By recognizing theconstraints faced by industry, learningabout the factors involved in air qualityissues, and prioritizing the desires of thestakeholder groups, the working groupwas able to negotiate a mutually accept-able policy framework.

Eighteen months later, the ElectricityTeam produced a set of regulations thatwere approved by the provincial govern-ment and are still in place today. Theregulations govern the operation of exist-ing coal plants as well as the construc-tion and operation of new plants, andinclude a policy review process everyfew years. In addition, the regulationscall for existing plants to reduce their car-bon dioxide and mercury emissionsevery five years.

Participants on the team identify a num-ber of positive outcomes. The provincenow has a clear emissions policy inplace, which accommodates the buildingof new plants while responding to theneed to reduce regulated emissions atregular intervals. The public benefits frombetter air quality because the regulationsaddress the harmful emissions in the mosteffective way, that is, by requiring their

MIKE KELLY (Director, Environment, Health and Safety -

TransAlta): “Capital stock turnover was critical to us and to soci-

ety at large because there are many millions of dollars sitting

there in that steel for construction. What we got for our side was

that the 40-year life of these plants was going to be honoured....”

C R O S S - S E C T O R PA R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 1 3


reduction. Industry has adequate time toadapt to new regulations, and can pro-tect its capital investments because theregulations respect the 40-year lifespanof existing plants. Early adopters of thenew regulations are rewarded with emis-sion credits. The non-profit sector has aguarantee that emissions will be reducedand air quality will improve, thus fulfilling

their mandate.In addition, thenon-profit sec-tor has alsogained a deep-er knowledgeof potentialallies and net-works withinthe electricitysector.

The Electricity Team was recognized withan Alberta Emerald Award for its workin 2004.

REASONS FOR SUCCESSCASA’s multistakeholder collaborativeprocess provides a number of benefitsfor participants and for external stake-holders. First, by bringing everyoneinvolved in a particular air quality issueto the same table, facts and opinions arecommunicated directly and openly, ensur-ing everyone receives the same informa-tion. Second, participants gain a broad-er understanding of the challenges andopportunities that exist in sectors otherthan their own. This would not occur ifstakeholders were operating in isolation.This allows participants to more speedilyidentify where they may differ and where

JILLIAN FLETT (Executive Director – CASA):

“It’s been an open and transparent process so

that it allows anyone and everyone who wants

information to get it.... Our minutes are all

public. It’s all available for people....”

TOM MARR-LAING (Senior AssociateConsultant – Pembina Institute): “It’s a very different experience to sit down inside a roomand try and work with somebody who you seeas the faceless bureaucrat or the rapacious capitalist.... Those are the stereotypes.... I think the genius in the Alberta situation washaving forums where people were forced toexplore those biases, and then have them challenged on all sides through dialogue.”



The alliance hasreceived numerousawards for its part-nership approachto complex issues.

PHOTO: COURTESY OF CASA

they may be aligned. Third, a multistake-holder approach to solving air qualityissues means that solutions are likely tobe acceptable to all stakeholders, reduc-ing the risk of lengthy, expensive hear-ings and lawsuits that often result fromnon-inclusive processes. As a result, multi-stakeholder-developed solutions tend tobe longer lasting because they were builtusing the perspectives of those who willbe affected by their implementation.

The CASA model often allows sectors toavoid an unnecessary sniping once anissue goes public. In policy processesactors with competing interests will some-times confront each other through massmedia. Public spats between actors maypush organizations into postures that arenot conducive to consensus building or tocollaborating with other sectors. MikeKelly, Director of Environment, Healthand Safety at TransAlta, believes that thevalued personal relationships and thetrust created through the CASA process,as well as the group’s history of success-es, have kept issues from becomingoverblown. Relationships and trust areparticularly important given the publicnature of CASA’s work; minutes frommeetings and all reports and recommen-dations are available online for the pub-lic’s perusal, part of the alliance’semphasis on accountability and trans-parency at all levels of the organization.

Air quality has improved in the provinceas a direct result of the implementation ofCASA’s recommendations. Solution gasflaring has been reduced by over 70%from a 2000 baseline, while sulphur and

mercury emissions have also beenreduced. CASA has also assisted thegovernment in setting ambient air qualityobjectives.

Finally, CASA has emphasized evalua-tion and stakeholder surveys, resulting ingood organizational understanding of itsstrengths and weaknesses. This decisionto collect feedback has created a flexibil-ity and attentiveness to stakeholder satis-faction that ensures the organizationremains relevant and effective.

CHALLENGESThe CASA process is not without its difficulties. First, consensus requires that all stakeholders at the table are able to discuss the issue on equal footing. In manycases, this means that individuals from certain organizations need to be broughtup to speed in terms of technical or regula-tory knowledge. This process can be lengthyand costly, but is necessary to ensure participation from everyone at the table.

Second, if consensus is not reached within the CASA process, the issue issent to the provincial government to ruleon a solution. However, since it is oftenthe provincial government that requestsCASA’s services, when an issue is sentback to government there is no guaran-tee of quick advancement on the policyissue. This has been the case with creating a carbon dioxide emissions policy and regulatory framework. CASA was unable to reach consensus on two occasions, and until early 2007, the provincial government had no framework in place.

MIKE KELLY (Director, Environment, Health and Safety – TransAlta):

“CASA cuts out the backdoor negotiations, and it depoliticizes it too,

which is the marvelous thing, because again, you’re not fighting it

out in the media, and the politicians like that, and we like that,

and the environmentalists like that too… so it works for everybody.”



Third, since each sector has a represen-tative, each representative must be anexcellent communicator capable of pre-senting and appreciating the priorities ofa number of different organizations. Thisneed also extends to reporting back toone’s own sector. Sector representativesare often unable to achieve every objec-tive that their member organizationsdesire. With consensus-based solutions,there are always points where certainparties have to compromise. Oftentimes,explaining to people who were not present at the table exactly how andwhy this happened can be difficult.Further, it is imperative that the individualselected by each sector be respectedand credible to ensure support for theircommitments and decisions.

There are also some sector-specific chal-lenges created by the multistakeholderapproach. It can be difficult to convincesome corporations that non-profit groupshave a legitimate place at the table, asthere remains the perception that non-profits cannot understand the issues andcomplexities involved in the private sector.On the other hand finding the resources

(both financial and human) to commit tothe often lengthy timeline required byCASA deliberations and to develop a sufficient understanding of the issues and complexities can be a challenge,especially for non-profit organizations.

Recognition and Looking ForwardThe alliance has received numerousawards for its partnership approach tocomplex issues, including two AlbertaEmerald awards for EnvironmentalExcellence, two Premier’s Awards ofExcellence and, in 2005, the ArthurKroeger College Award for PolicyLeadership. With a track record nowspanning a decade, CASA serves as amodel for other airshed organizationsthat have been set up across theprovince to monitor air quality, and moregenerally as a multistakeholder decisionmaking process. Already a number ofother organizations have turned toCASA for guidance in developing andimplementing a multistakeholderapproach to problem solving. For exam-ple, the CASA model has now beenused to develop the new Alberta WaterCouncil, which uses a multistakeholderapproach to address provincial waterissues. The replication of the model toaddress other environmental areas ofinterest is an affirmation of the public’ssupport for the process.

MIKE KELLY (Director, Environment, Health andSafety – TransAlta): “At the end of the day, all thoseother people couldn’t be at that table, and don’t under-stand how they got to that particular solution. There are always places where you can point and say,well, you could have done that better, how come you didn’t do this....”

TOM MARR-LAING (Senior Associate Consultant – Pembina

Institute): “It’s one tool in your toolkit. It should never be viewed

as an either/or – either you’re totally for confrontations or

you engage in these complex partnerships... It is a tool to

be used at the right time in the right circumstances....”



SundrePetroleumOperatorsGroupTransformingResentment to Mutual Trust

The Sundre PetroleumOperators Group (SPOG) is an organization of stakeholders

from industry, government and com-munity groups that operates in a 1000 square kilometre area of centralAlberta. The group includes represen-tatives from the Alberta Energy andUtilities Board (EUB), 30 oil and gascompanies and 15 communities whowork together to effectively communi-cate information and solve issues in a manner that benefits all stakeholders

in the region. This type of cross-sectorcollaboration around oil and gasdevelopment is called a synergygroup, and SPOG was among the first of these groups to emerge inAlberta. SPOG members are dedicat-ed to creating a community throughrelationships based on trust, honestyand mutual respect between members.

BACKGROUNDRural Alberta used to be the exclusivedomain of ranchers and farmers. Their prop-erties were large, and neighbours were oftenseparated by many kilometres. As the oil andgas industry entered the area and began tosearch for energy resources, deals werestruck between landowners and companies tosecure company access to particular sitesand along particular routes. Oil and gascompanies felt they understood the social and

JANET MARR (SPOG Coordinator): “Well, there were no means to communicate at all before, and each side felt the other was... it got to the point where you were thinking that they were evil, basically.”


Rural Alberta used to be the exclusive domain of ranchers and farmers. PHOTO: MARY GRIFFITHS, THE PEMBINA INSTITUTE

ALICE MURRAY (Community Affairs Associate – Shell Canada): “There was no real mechanism for the community to bring forward concerns or questions,and likewise the industry people.... were doing all sorts of good things, but there was no mechanism for communicating that back to the community.”

environmental concerns of the local pop-ulation, and that they were adequatelyaddressing these concerns.

Before synergy groups arose, it was diffi-cult for local people to identify and com-municate with industry. If landownershad an issue or question, they might godirectly to the company. If discussionswere unproductive, the landowner wouldthen turn to the EUB, which would thentalk to the company. The result was oftenthat very little could be done, sinceeveryone involved may have heard a dif-ferent story or been given different infor-mation. Companies would forge aheadwith projects unaware of, or in spite of,community concerns.

The Beginning of SPOGIn 1992,SPOG wasexclusivelymade up ofindustry mem-bers who wereworking togeth-er to provideefficiencies intheir emer-

gency response plans within the Sundrearea. However, there was no real com-munication between the SPOG membercompanies and the community, and thecommunity felt it had been ignored sinceoil and gas development began in thearea during the late 1980’s. A numberof incidents during the early 90’s rein-forced this growing sense of frustration.In 1992, a sweet gas transmission lineexplosion in the Caroline area (close toSundre) caused widespread panic and asurge in media attention. Meanwhile,sour gas development began in theSundre area, and people were fright-ened of its lethal potential.

In 1995, when Shell Canada applied tothe EUB to increase sour gas throughputin the Caroline plant, the communityprotested loudly during pre-hearing meet-ings and through the local media. TheEUB, along with a traditional hearing,took the unprecedented step of mandat-ing an “Interrogatory Process” to addressgeneral concerns about oil and gasdevelopment in the area. This processincluded hiring a communications con-sultant to record the results of interviewswith local residents. The consultant’sreport presented a stark picture of thetense relationship between the oil andgas industry and the communities inwhich they were operating. The commu-nity’s sentiment was clear: People wereresentful, mistrustful, and unhappy withoil and gas development.

Because the current confrontational situa-tion was extremely draining, the SPOGmember companies decided to hold acommunication workshop with other oil

SPOG VISION: A long term relationship

based on mutual trust, honesty and respect,

by way of sharing pertinent information and

resolving issues to benefit all stakeholders.



SPOG holds aworkshop at the

Caroline complexto share concerns

and solutions about oil and

gas developmentwith community

membersPHOTO: COURTESY OF SPOG

ALICE MURRAY (Community Affairs Associate

– Shell Canada): “Through the Covey training,

we all just kind of gelled. We could see then that

it was our problem, not someone else’s, and that

we all had a part in it. It also gave us a common

language to deal with the topic: “win-win” and

“synergy” and those kinds of words.

and gas companies in the area as wellas with community groups and individu-als. As a result of this workshop, theSPOG vision was formed: To establish a long-term relationship (between SPOGmembers) based on mutual trust, honestyand respect, by sharing pertinent infor-mation and resolving issues to the benefitall stakeholders. In addition, organiza-tions involved in the workshop agreedon a series of immediate action itemsand determined that the community, inthe form of representatives from localorganizations and different geographicareas, should be invited to join SPOG.

Immediately after completing the commu-nication session, SPOG held a workshopfor all members based on StephenCovey’s principle centered leadershipmodel.1 Keith Eflinger, a Shell managerat the time, proposed the Covey modelbecause he had seen how effective itwas at Shell. The half-day workshop atSPOG provided the now expandedmembership with common language toaddress issues, and a way of communi-cating effectively across sectors. It alsofocused the group’s collective attentionon their commonly held goals for thedevelopment and operation of SPOG.This immediate focus on creating andmaintaining a common vision and openlines of communication between all sectors began the trust-building process.

Communication and VisionMembers of SPOG believe the group’ssuccess can be traced to its unifyingvision of sharing information, two-way

dialogue, and continued commitment torelationships based on trust and respect.The vision is a constant touchstone for all members of SPOG; it is proudly displayed in the SPOG building and onthe website, is referred to at meetingsand reviews, and guides all SPOG work-ing groups. The vision reminds membersof what they represent and how theyhave agreed to interact.

As a result of the Interrogatory Processinstigated by the EUB, it was discoveredthat lack of communication between companies and the public was a recur-ring theme. SPOG addressed this issueby creating the quarterly newsletter,IMPACT. The newsletter has 6,000 subscribers and shares win-win storiesfrom the field, new developments in the

DAVE BROWN (community representative of SPOG):

“We have the vision before us all the time; we have it up on the

wall of our office. When people are meeting and start to get out

of line, we point to that. Your attitude and approach – does that

represent our vision? So we come back to our vision at all times;

it wasn’t thought of, put in a corner and forgotten about.

It’s at the forefront of everything we do.”



Communicationworkshops like thisone in ClearwaterCounty have thegoal of maintaininga common visionand open lines ofcommunicationbetween all sectors PHOTO: COURTESY OF SPOG

1 Principle centered leadership is based on the theory that both personal and professional relationships will be more effective when they are based on solidprinciples as opposed to distorted values and beliefs. More information is available at www.stephencovey.com/.

industry, and information on ongoingprojects. SPOG is currently looking atother ways of promoting its organization-al learning through a synergy supportcentre and increased web presence. Inaddition, SPOG holds an annual generalmeeting, quarterly meetings for theBoard of Directors, and subcommitteemeetings, which may be held monthly oreven weekly, to discuss emerging issuesand upcoming events.

REASONS FOR SUCCESSAs a result of SPOG’s work, the relation-ship between industry and communityhas improved greatly since the early1990s. There have been seven instanceswhere sour gas well applications havegone through the EUB without a hearing,which is nearly unheard of in Alberta.Over 100 public volunteers support theactivities of the group. In 2003, SPOGwas recognized by the Sundre communi-ty as “Ambassador of the Year.” SPOG’sactivities include everything from thepopular Community Days, which bringtogether SPOG member companies andthe community to share information andcelebrate successes, show support forother synergy groups, and highlight avariety of activities undertaken by work-ing groups. The SPOG working groupsfocus on specific issue areas such as gasflaring and water quality.

The Caroline “B” Pool working group atSPOG provides one example of the suc-cess this collaborative approach hasachieved in Sundre. When two compa-nies that were not members of SPOGbought and began to develop wells inthe Sundre region, a number of environ-mental concerns arose within the commu-nity. As a result, SPOG representativesfrom both the companies and the com-munity came together to form the “B”Pool working group. The results of theworking group included creating a devel-opment plan that was acceptable to boththe companies and the community, aswell as performance measures thatwould ensure environmental stewardshipand orderly development of theresources. The benefits include an easier

DAVE BROWN (community representative of SPOG):“There are positive things about a lot of this [oil and gasdevelopment] too. Local people give me heck for say-ing this because then they say I’m with industry, but alot of good things come out of it ... like there are lots ofsmall towns in this area that probably would be prettynear dead if it weren’t for the oil and gas industry.”



ALICE MURRAY (Community Affairs Associate - Shell Canada):

“There was a media fellow I had a chat with the other day who was

telling me how SPOG is an industry-funded, industry-run thing, just

pulling the wool over the eyes of the community. And you know,

I don’t believe that for a second.... Permission comes from the

community, and the partnership has to be mutually beneficial....

We truly sit and listen and sometimes we don’t get what we want,

but sometimes we get something that we hadn’t even thought of.”

Community members

and oil and gas workers

participate in aworkshop

in Mountain View County.

PHOTO: COURTESY OF SPOG

process for the companies as they applyto the EUB for permits, heightened envi-ronmental protection and performancemeasures, and improved relationshipswith local communities. Other successesof the Caroline working group includethe adoption of environmental policy rec-ommendations by the provincial govern-ment, numerous public presentations andinformation sessions, and best practicesguides for oil and gas companies.

CHALLENGESThe multistakeholder collaborativeapproach adopted by SPOG presentssome challenges for both companies andfor communities. The pace of develop-ment, the appearance and disappear-ance of companies, and the buying andselling of companies make it difficult forthe group to maintain an accurate list ofcompanies operating in the area. ClearlySPOG cannot recruit companies if it isnot aware of their operations within thearea. When a complaint or question islogged in the office, it is difficult to deter-mine exactly which company is responsi-ble for the event or structure in question.As the community itself continues tochange and grow, SPOG will constantlybe tested to find new ways of engagingand integrating members. Ironically,SPOG’s success means that in somecases the group has lost company repre-sentatives. Janet Marr, the SPOG admin-istrator, notes: “I’ve had people fromcompanies say to me... SPOG isn’t thearea we need to concentrate on any-more.... [W]e need to pull our communi-ty affairs people and put them up there

where things are active and we need toleave SPOG behind this time becausewe only have so many man [sic] hours toput towards this type of thing.” This rep-resents a real danger, since SPOG’sstrength, as Dave Brown states, is that allof the stakeholders in the area are “atthe table at the same time, hearing thesame stories, hearing and learning abouteach other and their issues.” Presence atthe table is what has so effectively builtthe trust and transparency that are inte-gral to SPOG’s success.

Companies also face many hurdles.Many medium- and smaller-sized compa-nies struggle to find adequate humanresources to address community issues.Attending synergy meetings in everyregion in which they operate presents anumber of logistical and resource chal-lenges. These smaller companies mayalso balk at paying the fee required tojoin SPOG, which is linked to the level ofproduction in the SPOG area. Provincialregulations do not mandate that compa-nies join the synergy groups in theiroperating area. Companies that havenot joined SPOG, and that have raisedenvironmental or community concerns,may destroy the delicate trust that hasbeen established in a community, affect-ing all oil and gas operators in thatarea. Within a company there may alsobe uncertainty about the merits of a com-munity partnership; certain employeesmay be unwilling to embrace the collab-orative process, and the model may cre-ate tension between those who value theprocess and those who believe resourcesshould be directed elsewhere.

DAVE BROWN (community representative for SPOG): “A lot

of these synergy groups are folding up. The big issue that they formed

for is gone. They’ve learned and they’ve gotten comfortable, and

they know how to deal with things. They don’t know what to

do anymore so they disband.... So we’re looking at becoming

more community minded.”



Finally, SPOG itself continues to face sus-picion in both industry and communitycircles that it is merely a front for indus-try. Media and community members whoare distrustful of industry are quick to crit-icize instances where they believe SPOGis promoting or supporting oil and gascompanies.

The FutureThe synergy movement is gainingmomentum in Alberta. The SPOG modelis being researched and shared by aca-demics and other community groups asan example of successful cross-sector col-laboration. SPOG is a founding memberof the newly formed Synergy Albertaorganization, which will provide toolsand support for synergy groups on aprovincial scale. However, SPOG mem-bers are quick to point out that SPOGcannot be recreated in a new context byfollowing a specific formula. SPOG hassucceeded because of the organizationsand individuals who have chosen to ded-icate their energy to fulfilling SPOG’svision in unique local circumstances.

One of the strengths of SPOG is that itsmembers continue to embrace their

future-focused outlook. Many other syner-gy groups in Alberta have disbandedafter the original issue was resolved.Although the issues of poor communica-tion and mistrust, which catalyzed thefounding of the SPOG, have largelybeen addressed, the organization contin-ues to seek out new ways to maintain rel-evance and connection within the area.SPOG recently completed a 15 yearreview using a World Café format. Thisformat allows small groups of people todiscuss important issues and then sharetheir collected wisdom as a larger com-munity to develop a co-created under-standing of the issue or question and aprocess or solution. The World Café format enabled members to uncover anew series of interest areas for SPOG.These include educating the community,expanding the emergency response program, increasing the focus on market-ing and becoming an environmentallyfriendly organization.

SPOG has expanded beyond its originalmandate in response to the changinglocal context. While the process-basedproblem management model has successfully addressed most issues, new technologies, sources of energy and environmental issues will requirecontinued flexibility. As a result ofSPOG’s clear and frequent communica-tion with all stakeholders, these stake-holders recognize that the landscape is changing. This will allow SPOG toremain relevant and connected by creat-ing new opportunities for organizationallearning and growth.

ALICE MURRAY (Community Affairs Associate –

Shell Canada): We’re very aware that SPOG is

unique to this community, and another community

can’t just be SPOG and take SPOG and put it on.

Each community has its own uniqueness and has

to create its own way of being.

DAVE BROWN (community representative for SPOG):

“We maintain an organization so that if someday some big issue

or emergency comes up we can respond to it.”



World WildlifeFund andCatalyst PaperSaving the Climate Through CollaborationBACKGROUNDThe world’s natural environment ischanging significantly as result ofhuman activity. As greenhouse gas(GHG) concentrations in the atmos-phere increase, global surface temperatures are rising as a result.These temperature increases pose several risks, including rising sea lev-els, more intense rainfall events andtropical storms, a loss of biodiversityand increased economic costs forwater, agriculture and forestry man-agement. If we are to address climatechange by reducing our production ofGHG emissions, we must change theway we live and do business. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an internationalconservation organization, is committed tosupporting movement towards more environ-mentally sustainable business practices.WWF’s interest in reducing carbon emissionsis in keeping with its mission – to stop thedegradation of the planet’s natural environ-ment and to build a future in which humans

live in harmony with nature.1 WWF recog-nizes, however, that companies cannot beexpected to voluntarily change in ways thatwill jeopardize their bottom line. Their respectof this fact has been a key to their success inengaging the private sector.

WWF has always taken a collaborativeapproach to working with the business sector.This is likely a result of its own history: WWFwas founded in 1962 by a collective of busi-ness people, government officials and scien-tists. Perhaps as a result of this mix of found-ing members, the organization has successful-ly launched a number of partnerships withvarious sectors and individual businesses. Forexample, WWF was integral in the creationof the widely respected Forest StewardshipCouncil, and co-founded the MarineStewardship Council to monitor and promotesustainable fisheries. In working with a vari-ety of companies across numerous sectors,WWF has developed an appreciation for thepotential of cross-sector partnerships, and anunderstanding of how to leverage their solidinternational reputation to support change inthe private sector.

MATTHEW BANKS (Senior Program Office, Private Sector Initiatives – WWF): “Climate Savers demonstrates to opinion leaders and to thebusiness communities... that this is good business, that there is money to be saved and that there is a business case for taking action on climate change sooner rather than later.”

1 http://www.wwf.ca/AboutWWF/WhoWeAre/Default.asp?lang=EN


Delegates from WWF and Climate Savers companiesattend the Carbon Management Conference in Paris,France, February 2007. PHOTO: ANDREW KERR, CATALYST PAPER

http://www.wwf.ca/AboutWWF/WhoWeAre/Default.asp?lang=EN

The Climate Savers ProgramIn 1999 WWF established ClimateSavers, an initiative aimed at establishingpartnerships with innovative companies tohelp them voluntarily reduce their GHGemissions. Companies that have signedon to the Climate Savers program havebeen at the forefront of emission reduc-tions in their sectors. By choosing to par-ticipate in the program, companies notonly reduce their contributions to climatechange, they also save millions of dollarsand gain a reputation for having an envi-ronmental conscience. For example,between 1998 and 2004 IBM achievedsavings of over $115 million in reducedenergy costs while avoiding 1.28 milliontons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Through the pro-gram, WWF actsas a ‘turnkey’source for partici-pating companiesfor GHG emissionsreduction target set-ting and programplanning, imple-mentation adviceand informationsharing. WWF firstseeks out progres-sive companiesfrom a variety of

industries, identifying desirable partnersby considering which company within agiven sector has the ability to be aleader in its field. In some recent casescompanies have sought out WWF to bepart of Climate Savers, recognizing theinitiative as a leader among corporateGHG reduction programs.

Companies work with WWF to deter-mine in what areas they can bestachieve emissions reductions. Goals arenegotiated during a series of meetings,and WWF often pushes companies to

set goals that are more ambitious thaninitially suggested. They are then moni-tored by WWF for compliance withthese targets by outside technicalexperts. The partnership is managed byrepresentatives from both organizations;WWF provides support through adviceand by arranging technical advisors,while companies are responsible formaking the necessary changes anddirecting the required actions. The part-nership managers are in frequent com-munication throughout the program.

Climate Savers agreements are formal-ized with a jointly created Memorandumof Understanding (MOU). The MOU out-lines the reasons for undertaking thepartnership, the areas of focus, and thetechnical targets that have been set. Italso describes how and when the corpo-rate partner may use the WWF logo,and makes clear that partners are notendorsing each others actions beyondthe boundaries of the partnership. TheMOU also serves as an evaluation tool;by clearly designating emission reductionbenchmarks against which success ismeasured, the partners establish anunambiguous definition of success.

Catalyst Paper Joins Climate SaversBased in British Columbia, CatalystPaper is one of the world’s largest direc-tory paper producers, and the biggestforest products customer in the province.Motivated by the environmental aware-ness of senior executives, the increase inpublic attention on carbon emissions andclimate issues, and the trust in WWF asa credible environmental NGO, Catalystbegan partnering with WWF Canada in2002. Then Catalyst President, RussellHomer stated that he had “immenserespect for WWF – for its vision, its com-mitment to conservation globally, its col-


WWF’s Matthew Banks

presents a Climate Savers

plaque acknowledging

Nike’s participationin the program.PHOTO: ANDREW KERR,

CATALYST PAPER


laborative approach to working with allstakeholders and its track record in get-ting results.”2 While the partnershipbegan as a traditional philanthropic rela-tionship (with Catalyst agreeing to con-tribute $350,000 over three years tosupport WWF Canada initiatives inBritish Columbia), the early success oftheir partnership built further trust andsupported the development of an increas-ingly involved relationship.

In 2005, Catalyst became the firstCanadian company to join WWF’sClimate Savers program.A representativefrom WWF toured Catalyst’s facilities toensure appropriate parameters and tar-gets were set in the agreement. Catalystpledged to reduce its CO2 emissions to70% below 1990 levels by 2010.3

According to WWF, this is one of themost ambitious commitments made by apublic company to reduce GHG emis-sions. So far, Catalyst has succeeded inmeeting these promises. In 2006 thecompany had already achieved its emis-sion reduction goals, and it has main-tained this level of emissions since.4 Atthe same time the company has savedfive million dollars in electricity costs,and cut the use of fossil fuels by 46%between 2002 and 2005, resulting inan additional savings of $13 million.5

REASONS FOR SUCCESSRepresentatives from both organizationspoint to a number of reasons why thepartnership between Catalyst and WWFhas been so successful. First, both part-ners recognize that traditional, and oftenconfrontational, interactions with organi-zations in other sectors fail to createdesirable outcomes. Matthew Banks,WWF’s US Senior Program Officer for

Climate Savers, notes that WWF is “aninstitution that tries to bring solutions tothe table, as opposed to naming andshaming companies.” In addition, thepartners have developed a clear under-standing of their partnership goals andcommitments through frequent communi-cation, have maintained corporate sup-port for the partnership at a senior level,and have built upon their history of suc-cessful partnership by sustaining a trust-ing and open approach to interactingwith each other. As Graham Kissack,Director of Sustainability at Catalyst,states: “People have to be sincere andgenuine in their willingness to worktogether.” It is precisely this sincerity andopenness that has allowed these organi-zations to build a successful partnership.

CHALLENGES & RISKSLike any complex relationship, there havebeen challenges in the development andmaintenance of the partnership. Catalysthad been involved in partnerships withother NGOs that resulted in only frustra-tion and paralysis of the partneringprocess. With certain special interestgroups, Kissack states: “it’s not so muchabout the solution as generating interestin the conflict.... [Y]ou can’t work collabo-ratively or constructively with a groupthat’s really trying to undermine the situa-tion.” A lack of transparency and trustacross sectors may be exacerbated whenthere are changes in senior leadership orpartnership manager positions. Trust,carefully built between specific individualsin both organizations, isn’t necessarilytransferable. Both WWF and Catalyst willneed to pay close attention to the partner-ship as Catalyst undergoes anticipatedchanges in its senior leadership and



2 http://www.catalystpaper.com/pdfs/wwf-partnership-dec2002.pdf3 http://worldwildlife.org/climate/publications/CS_factsheets_web.pdf4 http://worldwildlife.org/climate/publications/CS_factsheets_web.pdf5 http://worldwildlife.org/climate/publications/CS_factsheets_web.pdf

http://www.catalystpaper.com/pdfs/wwf-partnership-dec2002.pdf

http://worldwildlife.org/climate/publications/CS_factsheets_web.pdf



organization-al structure. It should alsobe noted thatnot all sec-tors of thecompany are as sup-portive of

the collaboration as others; some parts of the company are quite traditional intheir approach to working with the non-profit sector and may not be supportiveof the demands the partnership places on human and financial resources.

The WWF has also faced a number ofchallenges. One of the most difficult toaddress is a public perception that pro-grams like Climate Savers are detrimen-tal to the private sector and dangerousfor the global economy. As Banks states:“there’s still a lot of rhetoric in politicalcircles... that this will harm business andbankrupt the economy.” The WWF pro-gram attempts to address this perceptionthrough its successes; participants savemoney and achieve greater efficiencies.Skepticism around “green washing” isalso a challenge to the program’s credi-bility; as recently as October 2007, theprogram was attacked in a BusinessWeek article, in which the authorclaimed that the reduction efforts of member companies do not go farenough along the supply chain, andinsinuated that the Climate Savers pro-gram is “pay for play.” (Funding forClimate Savers is in fact providedthrough WWF’s industry program corefunds, which comprise contributions fromfoundations, businesses and individualdonors.) The potential for scandal if apartnering company becomes involved

in an environmental disaster also posesrisks to program credibility.

As environmental degradation and glob-al warming continue, the costs associat-ed with implementing a program likeClimate Savers will rise, making itincreasingly urgent to convince compa-nies to participate now. The lack of suffi-cient human resources at WWF makesscaling up the program challenging, asdo government policies and a regulatoryframework unsupportive of ambitiousenvironmental shifts in the private sector.

Partnership LearningThe Climate Savers partnership demon-strates the importance of setting clear,relevant and mutually agreed upon goalsat the beginning of a partnership, formal-ized within an MOU. Further, it showsthat taking time for adequate planningbefore diving into a partnership can payoff, as partners clarify their capabilities,commitments and expectations. Thesenegotiations can take from six months toup to two years before the partnership isformalized. While considerable, as thetrack record of the program shows, part-nerships unfailingly deliver upon theircommitments once the framework is inplace. Regular communications – everytwo weeks in some cases – help to keepparticipants on track. Finally, as with anystrategic alliance, Climate Savers showsthat brand and reputation matter. TheWWF panda is the eighth most recog-nized brand symbol in world, and anassociation with it certainly enhances thereputation of member companies amongstakeholders. In turn, its credibility allowsWWF to push companies to make moreaggressive reduction targets than theywould have made on their own.

GRAHAM KISSACK (Director of Sustainability– Catalyst Paper): “We sort of needed a fresh set of eyes to challenge us, to help us improveour sustainability performance. The other half of the equation is that they [WWF] bring a certain reputation quality – they have a greenhalo and they bring that to the table.”


Catalyst joinedthe Climate

Savers programin 2005 and

met ambitiouscommitments to reduce its

CO2 emissions.PHOTO: CATALYST PAPER


The Suncor-PembinaPartnershipMutually Exploring Sustainability

The partnership betweenSuncor Energy and thePembina Institute is an

example of a cross-sector partner-ship that provides benefits both forpartners and for a much broaderstakeholder group.

Suncor Energy is a major energyproducer and marketer based inCalgary, Alberta. Suncor pio-neered commercial development ofthe Alberta oil sands in 1967, andhas since developed interests in renew-able energy, including ethanol andwind power. It was also one of the firstenergy sector companies in Canada topartner with solution-focused non-profitorganizations – organizations like thePembina Institute. The Pembina Institute was founded in 1986by a group of Alberta citizens following theLodgepole sour gas blowout.1 The PembinaInstitute is committed to finding innovativesolutions to energy and environmental issuesthrough research, education, advocacy andconsulting, and has been recognized within

the oil and gas industry as a leading non-profit partner in achieving practical sustain-able development goals.

BACKGROUNDWhen Gord met RobThe tradition of stakeholder engagement inAlberta can be traced back many years. One of the original provincial stakeholderengagement forums was the Energy ResourcesConservation Board (ERCB), which was creat-ed in 1971. The ERCB’s mandate was to regulate energy development in the province,and to conduct public hearings for projectsthat were especially complicated or divisive.

GORD LAMBERT (Vice President, Sustainability – Suncor): “When theycreated the EUB, it prompted or almost caused stakeholder dialogue tooccur because they had this authority and power to have public hear-ings.... All of the sudden you found that companies and stakeholders weretrying to resolve issues and come to an agreement outside of the hearings.”CCrroossss--SSeeccttoorr PPaarrttnneerrsshhiippss ffoorr SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

The Pembina Institute’s early support to Suncor centered around its lifecycle value assessment methodology. PHOTO: JEREMY MOORHOUSE, PEMBINA INSTITUTE

1 In 1982 an Amoco Canada sour gas well blew, and burned out of control for 68 days. During this time over four million cubic metres of sour gas flowedper day, with a hydrogen sulphide content of 28 per cent. Two blowout specialists were killed following the accident, and 16 people were hospitalized.At times the rotten-egg smell of the hydrogen sulphide content in the gas could be detected as far away as Winnipeg. For a short description of the acci-dent, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry_in_Canada (natural_gas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry_in_Canada

When the ERCBmerged with thepublic utilities in1996, the resultwas the forming of the AlbertaEnergy UtilitiesBoard (EUB). TheEUB’s mandate isto ensure thatAlberta’s mineraland oil and gasresources aredeveloped in aresponsible and

safe manner. The EUB is authorized bythe provincial government to protect theinterests of Albertans with respect to theexploration, development and marketingof these resources; companies must havethe EUB’s approval before they canbegin any extraction work. The EUB alsohas the power to force public hearingsinto proposed projects if it thinks thatpublic concern warrants it. Because hear-ings can significantly increase the costsand timelines associated with a givenproject, and significantly affect the out-come of an extraction application, com-panies have a vested interest in avoidingthem. This operating reality has histori-cally prompted stakeholder engagementand consultation activities within the oiland gas industry.

The formal partnership work betweenSuncor and the Pembina Instituteemerged from an informal relationshipthat had developed between two individ-

uals involved in these stakeholder consul-tations. Rob Macintosh (one of the found-ing members of the Pembina Institute)and Gord Lambert (currently the VicePresident of Sustainable Development atSuncor) worked together on a number ofdifferent projects, beginning with theClean Air Strategic Alliance process inthe early 1990s. They developed a per-sonal relationship as a result of their suc-cessful collaborations on shared environ-mental interests; this relationship createdan opening for a more formal organiza-tional-level connection to develop.

The partnership process: key milestonesSuncor and the Pembina Institute had achance to develop a more formal organi-zational partnership in 1998 whenSuncor submitted its Steepbank mineapplication to the provincial governmentfor approval. The Pembina Institute sawan opportunity to work with Suncor todevelop a more sustainable approach tothe mine’s development. Suncor and thePembina Institute were able to negotiatenew development goals and alternativesthat allowed Suncor to avoid costly legalhearings, increase public acceptance ofthe project and demonstrate its commit-ment to triple bottom line objectives. Thispositive contact allowed Suncor and thePembina Institute to view each other ascompetent and trustworthy partners.

A commitment was then made by bothorganizations to work closely on sustain-



Rob Macintosh,above, and

Gord Lambertdeveloped a

personal relation-ship based

on successful collaborations

on shared environmental

interests.PHOTO: DAVID DODGE, THE PEMBINA INSTITUTE

TOM MARR-LAING (Senior Associate Consultant,

Pembina Institute): “Suncor was one of those

companies that we developed a relationship

with in the late 1990s. They were making some

progressive stands on these issues, so we went

in and added a fair amount of value to their

analysis, and enabled them to make some

progressive and constructive improvements.”

able development goals of mutual con-cern. Interests were aligned: Suncorwished to be a leader in corporate sustainability, and the Pembina Institutewished to help companies achieve leadership standards. To this end, thePembina Institute’s consulting arm provid-ed Suncor with advice, training andresearch support on management prac-tices and strategies for sustainability, andgrew to serve Suncor as a key externalthink tank for formulating solutions tocomplex sustainability challenges. ThePembina Institute’s support centeredaround its life cycle value assessment(LCVA) methodology – a tool to ensurethat the environmental, economic andsocial issues, risks and opportunities aresystematically considered throughout thelife cycle of a project, product or service.Over several years the Pembina Institutefacilitated dozens of LCVA reviews forSuncor projects; indeed, these reviewsare now a mandatory part of the compa-ny’s design process for major capitalprojects. For its part, Suncor provided thePembina Institute with sufficient resourcesand latitude to allow the group to deepenits expertise in LCVA and other compo-nents of sustainable business.

The Clean Air Renewable Energy (CARE)Coalition provides another example of a successful partnership between the Pembina Institute and Suncor. ThePembina Institute was instrumental in helping Suncor to articulate the businesscase for investment in renewable energy.Together, they were able to identify anumber of potential benefits and invest-

ment opportunities. In 2000, Suncor pub-licly committed to investing $100 millionover five years in renewable energy devel-opment. Both organizations identified theneed for supportive public policy to cat-alyze Suncor’s investment and to encour-age other compa-nies to make similarinvestments. TheCARE coalition –comprising 13 com-panies, eight envi-ronmental groupsand the CanadianFederation ofMunicipalities –was formed in2000 to addressthis need. This multi-stakeholder initia-tive aimed to sup-port renewableenergy develop-ment through advo-cacy and policychanges. After invit-ing other organiza-tions from both sec-tors to join, the CARE coalition successful-ly lobbied the federal government to cre-ate a wind power production incentiveprogram, which subsequently increasedproduction across Canada from 100 MWto over 4,000 MW.

Not unlike the Suncor/Pembina Instituterelationship, by being a group of “coun-terintuitive strange bedfellows” CARE presents its stakeholders with a compellingbrand and business case for change.



Gord Lambert,above,VicePresident ofSustainability atSuncor providedPembina with sufficient resourcesto allow the groupto deepen its expertise in LCVA. PHOTO: COURTESYOF SUNCOR

Within a few short years Suncor’s effortsto become a leader in corporate sustain-ability drew attention. The company was identified by Corporate Knightsmagazine as one of the 50 BestCorporate Citizens in 2002, and wonan award for the best sustainabilityreport from the North America Awardsfor Sustainability Reporting in 2004.Today, the company’s core purpose state-ment refers explicitly to the importance of meeting or exceeding the economic,social and environmental expectations of a broad range of stakeholders.

At the same time, the Pembina Institutehas grown into Canada’s largest thinktank organization focused on energyand environment issues. Its consultingarm, with a national-level clientele madeup of companies and governments span-ning various sectors and jurisdictions,serves as a bedrock for promoting theinstitute’s change objectives.

The traction that the partnership gaveboth groups was undoubtedly a con-tributing factor to their individual success.

GORD LAMBERT (Vice President, Sustainability – Suncor): “One thing that was characteristic of CAREwas a very laser focus on outcomes. One thing I thinkis really common and has been critical in thePembina/Suncor relationship is the results-orientednature of it. We don’t waste time on process if it’s not leading to a clear outcome.”



Pembina Corporate Consulting works with companies that desire to be leaders in corporate responsibility and sustainability. COURTESY OF THE PEMBINA INSTITUTE

REASONS FOR SUCCESSThe right individualsA unique mix of individual and organi-zational characteristics has been respon-sible for the success of the Suncor/Pembina Institute relationship. Membersfrom both organizations identify theimportance of having had the right peo-ple at the table who could build trust,understanding and commitment towardstheir opposite. The “right” people arethose who are genuinely committed tofinding solutions, to appreciating theneeds of the other organization, and to maintaining transparency. They alsohave relevant knowledge, such as famil-iarity with life cycle assessment tools thatis desirable to the partner organization.

The right driversThere was also the right mix of drivers.Suncor understood the need to build socialand environmental as well as businessvalue, and made a clear commitment tobuilding a culture around this recognition.

From early on, the Pembina Instituteviewed Suncor as having the potential tobe a leader in its sector, and committedto helping the company fulfill that poten-tial. Part of the Pembina Institute’s strate-gy for change is to work closely with sec-tor leaders to improve their sustainabilityperformance; at the same time, the insti-tute’s advocacy arm creates disincentivesfor laggards to maintain the status quo.This “push–pull” strategy, depicted in the figure on page 4, is designed to theshift the entire sector toward improvedsustainability performance.

Clear expectations and operating principlesAnother reason for the success of thepartnership between Suncor and thePembina Institute is the clarification of thepartnership’s purpose and goals, as wasdetailed in a Memorandum of Under-standing (MOU) signed by both organi-zations in 2001. Suncor identifies itsinterests as securing access to knowl-edge, testing new eco-efficiency goalsand objectives, receiving input andensuring successful and profitable business projects. The Pembina Instituteseeks to advance its long term sustain-ability objectives by supporting Suncor in the development, monitoring andimplementation of sustainability goals,and in promoting corporate responsibilityand policy advancement by encouragingpositive developments.

The partners’ activities include research,training, assessment and the develop-ment of policies and tools. The PembinaInstitute may play a different role withineach kind of engagement: stakeholder,consultant, joint-venture partner or policyadvocate. In some cases, the PembinaInstitute will choose to adopt an advoca-cy role, which may place the partners indirect opposition. The MOU serves toidentify each of these potential roles, andclarifies the expectations and outcomesof each type of engagement. It alsostates that additional agreements will becreated for specific projects that willclearly outline the purpose and type ofrelationship needed for these projects, aswell as the objectives agreed upon by



both partners. The clarity surroundingthese types of engagement and theexpected outcomes creates transparencyand builds trust. It also shows that bothpartners realize the value of flexibilityand of knowing where and how they willcollaborate.

CHALLENGES AND FUTURECOLLABORATIONThe matrix of political, environmentaland economic forces that act on eachorganization individually and on thepartnership itself has changed. While inthe late 1990s Suncor was a pioneer inAlberta oil sands development, it is nowone player among many. The rapid paceof development in the oil sands, and theenvironmental implications of this devel-opment, has prompted the PembinaInstitute to at times take an aggressiveadvocacy role. When bilateral discus-sions on a Suncor expansion brokedown in 2006, the two groups ended upon opposite sides of a table in a regula-tory hearing into the expansion.

The fact that the Pembina Institute maytake a public and oppositional stance to

some of Suncor’s projects or policies canobviously put strains on the relationship.While this reality is acknowledged in theMOU, what is on paper does not neces-sarily preclude these instances frombeing uncomfortable for either organiza-tion. As with any good partnership, fol-lowing the 2006 hearing the groupstook the time to explore why their discus-sions failed to reach agreement andwhat to change for next time.

Still, with a 10-year history of collabora-tion, both Suncor and the PembinaInstitute continue to work together toachieve sustainable development goalsof mutual interest. In 2007 the PembinaInstitute provided Suncor with researchinto an emerging biofuel technology,while Suncor was a key sponsor for anational workshop the institute hosted oneffective carbon pricing. In early 2008the Pembina Institute, with the SouthernAlberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) asits co-facilitator, will deliver sustainabilitytraining to hundreds of Suncor majorproject employees, leaders and contentexperts. Through this new project,Suncor and the Pembina Institute will continue to deepen their novel, pragmatic alliance.

DIANNE ZIMMERMAN (Senior Manager, Issue

Management and Stakeholder Engagement – Suncor):

“Suncor’s reputation around sustainability was the

reason I was attracted to come and join them....

I believe that you need to reach out to each person

individually and provide them with appropriate train-

ing on sustainability. We need to create a sustainabil-

ity culture within Suncor. Much like we did on safety.”



sustainable energy solutions - leading canada's transition to

Documents