the challenges of transparency: communicating the pebble...

University of Alaska Anchorage Master of Public Administration

August 24 2018 Comprehensive Examine

1. The Challenges of Transparency: Communicating the Pebble Mine Project case study clearly identifies stakeholders and it also defines or implies several entities and/or interest groups who have an interest in or will be impacted by the Pebble Mine.

a. List 10 stakeholders, entities and/or interest groups that are identified or implied in the case study.

b. Sort them into the three groups i. leaning towards being for the mine

ii. leaning towards being against mine iii. Uncommitted

c. For each stakeholder group, define their values and key goals as they related to the group’s interests in the Pebble Mine Project and its impacts.

d. Briefly explained, how these groups can be understood in the context of a Policy Paradox?

2. The case study identifies and implies costs and benefits of the Pebble Mine Project overtime.

a. Consider the case study information as it relates to the Pebble Mine Project impact over the following overtime spans

i. (Short Term) 5 to 25 year ii. (Medium Term) 25 to 100 years and

iii. (Long term) 100 to 1000 years) b. Also consider the values and goals of stakeholders, entities and/or interest groups you

identifies in question one. c. Then identify the major cost (losses) or benefit (gains) and winners and losers

associated with the Pebble mine in the short term, medium long term?

3. Present the best argument for the development of Pebble Mine.

And then reverse roles and present the argument against the mine. Then consider;

a. Which group has done the best job in transparency of information and process, social responsibility and communicating with the public and why?

b. Which one do you believe is a stronger argument and why?

Andrew Hoffman

The Challenges of Transparency: Communicating the Pebble Mine Project to the Public

Published by WDI Publishing, a division of the William Davidson Institute (WDI) at the University of Michigan.

©2017 Oliver Harfield, Tara Mahon, Tom Van Heeke, and Harry Wolberg. This case was written by Oliver Harfield, Tara Mahon, Tom Van Heeke, and Harry Wolberg under the supervision of Professor Andrew Hoffman at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business.This case was prepared exclusively as the basis for class discussion and is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a situation. The case should not be considered criticism or endorsement and should not be used as a source of primary data.

Sebastian Seabrooki flipped to the last page of Northern Dynasty’s environmental assessment study and smiled. He looked up and admired the beautiful Alaskan sunrise from his office window. As the Chief Operating Officer of Northern Dynasty Ltd. and the Pebble Partnership, Seabrook thought highly of his company’s efforts to objectively study all possible impacts that the mining activity would have on the surrounding ecosystem in Bristol Bay. He was proud of the scientific rigor with which his scientists had undertaken their work. Their report would ensure a smoother transition from mining exploration to extraction in the next few years. Seabrook was further encouraged by many in the state who saw his company’s efforts as necessary to revitalize Alaska’s economy.

Seabrook also knew that opposition from environmentalists was likely, regardless of mining’s purported impacts on the ecosystem. People could question Northern Dynasty’s science, but he saw more powerful forces gathering to question the social and environmental perceptions of his company’s actions. Even if the science was accurate, he knew that many would oppose mining because they saw corporations as irresponsible environmental stewards. In addition, many would see the deep power imbalance of his company working in struggling Native Alaskan communities. Seabrook understood the controversy his company’s proposal generated, as many residents would remain skeptical regardless of the information and data his company released. He had noticed this trend as other companies around the world tried to use transparency to mitigate negative perceptions about corporate environmental and social responsibility. He hoped to learn from effective strategies to increase transparency, while avoiding strategies that had stoked controversy.

As he finished reading the report, he thought about what his company should do to avoid further controversy and preempt any intervention from regulators. Would his scientists’ data and findings assuage public fears or incite them? He needed to decide quickly on a course of action in the face of EPA uncertainty.

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay, located in southwestern Alaska, had abundant coastal and inland waters, including nine major river streams that were home to the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world.1 The area’s pristine

i This is a fictional character and does not represent the experiences or actions of any living person.

case 1-430-511April 20, 2017

Unauthorized reproduction and distribution is an infringement of copyright. Contact us for permissions: [email protected] or 734-615-9553

2


waters teemed with rich and flourishing wildlife. As of 2014, Bristol Bay supported economic activity worth an estimated $1.5 billion a year.2 Furthermore, the area was a premier tourist destination drawing recreational fishing and tourist activities, totaling $100 million every year.3

Geology

Underneath the natural beauty of Bristol Bay lay the world’s largest copper, gold, and molybdenum reserve. Molybdenum is an extremely valuable mineral used for high-strength steel alloys and non-liquid lubrication.4 The gold alone in Pebble Mine was worth an estimated $120 billion.5 Adding other mineral deposits brought estimates as high as $500 billion.6 The Pebble Partnership, comprised of several large mining corporations,7 had conducted numerous studies on the environmental impacts of mining in Bristol Bay, concluding that mining activities would not harm the surrounding ecosystems.8 The partnership was committed to taking every precaution necessary to protect the local environment. They were careful to point out that potential impacts would not affect the vitality of Bristol Bay’s sockeye salmon fishery.9 Despite Pebble Partnership’s assurances, scientists were clamoring to examine their data and recreate their studies to ensure responsible environmental stewardship.

Local Economy

Bristol Bay was home to many Native Alaskan communities “who have maintained a salmon-based culture and subsistence-based way of life for at least 4,000 years.”10 The New York Times reported, “Salmon are the economic backbone for Bristol Bay’s isolated communities. Many Native Alaskans work full or part time harvesting and processing the bay’s sustainable salmon.”11 Additionally, many indigenous communities relied on salmon for income as well as for food.12 According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, “Salmon are harvested using a variety of fishing gear, and more Alaskans are employed in harvesting and processing salmon than in any other commercial fishery.”13 Nonetheless, many residents of these communities also sought employment and greater opportunities in cities that offered economic advancement. Especially among younger generations, economic advancement opportunities were a ladder to climb out of poverty.

Despite the vibrancy of the salmon fishery, economic conditions in Alaska had declined sharply with the global decline of oil prices. Moody’s Investors Services forecasted that the outlook for the state had shifted from stable to negative, noting that “the drop in oil prices now threatens to rapidly and significantly reduce the state’s budgetary reserves.”14 Although the whole state felt these shocks, many in Native Alaskan communities acutely felt the negative economic conditions. Native Americans, including Native Alaskans, were the poorest people in the United States in 2013, suffering a poverty rate approximately twice the national average at 29.2%.15 In a place where job prospects were scarce, the Pebble Mine had the potential to bring much needed capital and economic opportunity to these impoverished communities.

The Pebble Partnership had pledged that mining jobs would go to Alaskan Natives to support economic development in the community. Additionally, the partnership had proposed to undertake infrastructure improvements that it hoped would improve living conditions and promote economic growth. According to an environmental journalist who visited the proposed mining site, “Much of the profits will remain with the Alaskan people, in the form of fees, taxes and royalties paid by the Pebble Group. Still more money will be paid to the federal government. Mining operations will create more than 2,000 high-paying jobs, including 1,000 permanent jobs. This economic bounty will benefit the entire U.S. economy, while the people of Iliamnaii would be the greatest beneficiaries of all.”16

ii The mine would be situated on Lake Iliamna, an area that was home to many Native Alaskans.

1-430-511


3


Alliances

With deep divides on both sides of the issue, an unlikely alliance had formed between some in the Native Alaskan community, commercial fishermen, and some self-described concerned conservative Republicans to lobby for federal intervention to prevent mining in Bristol Bay and protect against environmental degradation. On the other hand, many in Alaska, including other Native Alaskans, saw federal intervention as an egregious violation of the state’s right to decide its own course, and one that could set a powerful precedent that discouraged future projects that would bring much-needed investment to the state.17 The EPA agreed to review the case but left unclear what actions it would take. Northern Dynasty hoped to avoid EPA interference, ensuring that all its studies represented objective science that pointed to no serious environmental impacts. The company had yet to begin the permitting process that would allow it to begin mineral extraction.

Mine History

Mining in Alaska began approximately 200 years ago, when placer gold was first discovered in the area by Russian explorers.18 Placer mining is a practice that removes deposits from sand or gravel. After the acquisition of Alaska by the United States, gold mining continued to expand, and it was still an active industry in the state through 2016.19 In 1896, a large gold deposit was found in the Klondike river, putting Alaska on the map as a destination for those in search of gold and fortune. Over the next several decades, thousands of men ventured to Alaska, growing the gold economy even further.20 Many of Alaska’s major cities – such as Anchorage, Nome, Fairbanks, and Juneau – were founded around mining camps.21 (See Exhibit 1 for the location of the Pebble Mine in Alaska)

Exhibit 1The Pebble Mine is Located in Southwestern Alaska

Source: Northern Dynasty/Pebble Partnership. http://www.pebblepartnership.com/location.html. Accessed 12/10/2016.

1-430-511


4


In addition to gold, Alaska was rich in other metals such as silver, zinc, lead, copper, molybdenum, and platinum. Mining made up seven percent of Alaska’s total GDP and brought approximately 3,500 year-round jobs. There were currently five major mines operating in Alaska in 2016: Red Dog, Fort Knox, Pogo, Kensington and Green Creek.22 There were countless other family-owned mines throughout the state that contributed a great deal to Alaska’s economic prosperity. A report conducted by the Alaska Miners Association found that placer mining brought in approximately $100 million in revenue per year.23

Although mining techniques were controversial, the output allowed for many of the technologies that were essential for everyday modern life. Things as simple as electricity and indoor plumbing both required copper, collected through mining. Additionally, more advanced technologies such as smart phones, laptops, tablets, photovoltaics, and batteries all required products that were obtained through mining.24 Mining allowed for many of the vital components of goods produced and consumed in contemporary society. Moreover, much of the technological advancement in recent decades was made possible because of the minerals collected through mining.

Pebble Mine would become the largest mine in the United States and had the potential to produce 80 billion tons of copper, 107 million ounces of gold, and 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum.25 (See Exhibit 2 for Alaska’s Hardrock Mines)

Exhibit 2Alaska’s Hardrock Mines, Past and Future

Source: Ground Truth Trekking. Alaska Metals Mining. February 16, 2015. http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/MetalsMining.html. Accessed 12/10/16.

Northern Dynasty/Corporate Partners

In 1986, the mining company Teck Cominco bought, from the State of Alaska, the rights to the mineral deposit that came to be known as the Pebble deposit. The company conducted mineral testing and did some initial drilling, but due to regulations protecting the Bristol Bay Area -- namely the Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) -- the company was unable to do much more. The deposit remained untouched for a nearly a decade, until Northern Dynasty expressed interest in purchasing it from Teck Cominco. Initially, Northern Dynasty only had funds to partially acquire the deposit, but by 2005 Northern Dynasty was the sole owner of the Pebble deposit, a 417 square mile stretch of land.26 In that same year, Alaska’s state government altered the BBAP such that the plan prioritized mineral resources over fish.27

Between 2002 and 2005, Northern Dynasty increased its estimates of the known resources in the Pebble deposit from 1,000 million tons to 4,100 million tons of ore. This attracted large investors, and by 2007 Northern Dynasty obtained substantial financial backing from Mitsubishi Corporation and Rio Tinto. Later

1-430-511


5


that year, Northern Dynasty entered into a 50:50 partnership with Anglo American, Ltd., thus creating the Pebble Partnership.

As the Pebble Partnership continued to explore the area and gain funds, public awareness of the mine increased, and with it came disapproval. People worried that the billions of gallons of toxic waste being used to extract the resources would destroy the pristine ecosystem and their way of life. As a result, the 2008 ballot included an initiative to prevent the mine, called the “Alaska Clean Water Initiative.”28 The Pebble Partnership worked to prevent the initiative from passing, spending $10 million on advertisements alone. Although the initiative was eventually defeated, the Pebble Partnership continued to run advertisements to appeal to the public, and it spent an estimated $1.7 million on lobbying.29

Potential Mine Impact

Northern Dynasty and its partners understood that their operations could affect the surrounding environment and community, and they made efforts to reassure the public that they took those effects seriously.

At every opportunity, Northern Dynasty went to great lengths to emphasize its commitment to the environment. In 2007, for example, the company announced its partnership with Anglo American and used public statements to underscore the social responsibility that it felt in proceeding with the project. Anglo American’s CEO at the time explained that the partnership “is committed to the highest international standards for community relations, environmental protection, and health and safety.” Her counterpart at Northern Dynasty, Ron Thiessen, reassured the public that “Alaska’s environmental standards...are among the most stringent in the world. Northern Dynasty’s experienced, largely Alaskan-based, mine development team has been undertaking thorough and balanced technical, environmental and social assessments to ensure that the Pebble project is developed in a manner that protects the environment and traditional ways of life.”30

One of the actions the company took to demonstrate its commitment was to transport crews and equipment to the region by helicopter. Thiessen explained to reporters that though the Bristol Bay region had no road network, Northern Dynasty had not built any surface transportation infrastructure and was choosing instead to fly its workers and supplies in and out of the area -- a much more expensive proposition that the company felt was justified to minimize the impact of the project.31

The Pebble Mine could also invigorate the local economy, creating opportunities for residents -- including Native Alaskans -- in a region whose remoteness can be economically limiting. Economic impact assessments estimated that mine construction and production would create thousands of jobs in Alaska and add billions to the state’s economy.32

Nonetheless, local community members and others had reason to be nervous. The Pebble Mine project had the potential to harm the environment and local community in a variety of ways. Most visibly, the mine would likely tear open a pristine landscape. The project’s total footprint would cover 28 square miles of land, making it one of the largest mining complexes in the world. By some expectations, the mine would consist of a pit more than three miles across and up to 4,000 feet deep, though the mining operators could find ways to use underground mining techniques to limit the extent of the mine’s open pit. To store the waste produced (also known as “tailings”), there were plans to construct large earthen dams taller than the Washington Monument to create impoundments.33 (See Exhibit 3)

1-430-511


6


Exhibit 3Large Dams Would Impound the Mine’s Waste in Tailings Reservoirs

Tailings Reservoir

Tailings Dam

Transamerica Building – 260 Meters

Tailings Dam TSF 1 – 209 Meters

Washington Monument – 169 Meters

Gateway Arch – 192 Meters200

180

160

140

120Met

ers

100

80

60

40

20

0

220

240

260

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska: Executive Summary. January 2014. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/bristol_bay_assessment_final_2014_es.pdf. Accessed 12/10/16.

The region’s salmon population was also vulnerable. Salmon are sensitive to even small changes in their habitat, and populations succeed only in relatively narrow ranges of environmental conditions. Salmon thrive in waters with a pH between 7.0 and 8.0. Greater acidity (i.e., lower pH) interferes with bodily functions, harms primary prey species, and -- if the pH drops below 4.5 -- ultimately causes death or displacement of the population.34

As a result, the mine’s single greatest threat to the area’s salmon stocks came in the form of acid mine drainage (AMD).35 AMD occurs through a chemical reaction between surface waters and rocks containing sulfur-bearing minerals, which creates sulfuric acid. The acid in turn leaches heavy metals from the rock, creating toxic fluids that threaten the environment.36

Samples of AMD taken from four metal mines in California found pH levels as low as 1.6. Given that AMD is the “primary source of mining-related pH changes in ground and surface waters,” similarly acidic drainage from the Pebble Mine could wreak havoc on Bristol Bay’s globally significant salmon population.37

Residents relied heavily on local fish for their livelihoods and survival. Salmon are integral to the cultures of the region’s Alaskan Native communities, not least because of their role as a subsistence food. In Bristol Bay, salmon made up more than half of the subsistence harvest.38 Commercial fishing operations also depended on the health of Bristol Bay’s aquatic ecosystem. In 2010, the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery supported 12,000 fishing and processing jobs and produced a salmon catch worth $165 million.39 (See Exhibit 4 for Bristol Bay’s share of salmon harvests.) This directly benefited the local economy, where commercial fishing was responsible for three-quarters of local employment.40

Most alarming for some was the time horizon at play when considering the mine’s environmental toll. The jobs and minerals extracted would deliver benefits over the course of decades, with a fixed end date for the mine’s productive life. However, the potential damage to local salmon stocks, waterways, and the landscape would be permanent. Northern Dynasty stated that it expected the mine to be active for 20-25 years.42 But to contain the mine’s waste, the impoundments that Northern Dynasty would construct

1-430-511


7


needed to remain intact essentially forever. The region’s seismic activity -- and the possibility, however slim, of an earthquake weakening or destroying the impoundment dams -- made this difficult to guarantee.43 Northern Dynasty said it would monitor the mine for at least 30 years after mining finished.44 Nonetheless, environmental advocates warned that this might be insufficient. At former mining sites elsewhere, taxpayers were funding millions of dollars of annual clean-up costs that were expected to continue in perpetuity. As a result, typical cost-benefit metrics could underestimate the true costs of full exploitation of Pebble Mine and thought needed to be given to the long-term consequences of extraction in the region.45

Exhibit 4Bristol Bay Accounts for a Disproportionately Large Share of the World’s Sockeye

Salmon Harvest41

World Sockeye Salmon Harvests by Region

1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

0

241,419Bristol Bay Other Alaska Lower 48 Canada Japan RussiaGrouped Stacked

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commercial Fisheries Overview. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareabristolbay.main. Accessed 12/10/16.

Opposition to the Mine

Public opposition to the mine was deep at both a local and statewide level. Local stakeholders included commercial fishermen, residents of the region’s villages, and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC) and its more than 10,000 shareholders.iii

Public opinion surveys found overwhelming opposition to the project among all three groups. A 2009 poll found that 80 percent of Bristol Bay residents opposed the mine. Other surveys found that more than eight in 10 of the area’s commercial fishermen and BBCN shareholders also expressed opposition.46

iii The BBNC is one of the state’s Alaska Native Regional Corporations, for-profit entities created by federal legislation in the 1970s to settle land claims made by Alaska Natives. Congress transferred ownership of millions of acres of land from the federal government to the newly formed corporations, whose shareholders then took responsibility for the land’s use and development. (Bristol Bay Native Corporation. ANCSA.)

1-430-511


8


Concern over the project extended across Alaska. A 2014 voter initiative known as “Bristol Bay Forever” received 65 percent or more of the vote in every precinct in the state. The initiative protected the Bristol Bay watershed from large-scale mining unless the state legislature passed an affirmative finding that such activities would not harm wild salmon in the region.47

National environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), also added their voices to the chorus of opposition.

Permitting Process

The permitting process for a mine, such as the Pebble Mine, is long and complex. For the Pebble Mine in particular, the process took three years and required dozens of separate permits from local, state, and federal agencies, all of which were necessary to proceed.48 To complete the permitting process, Northern Dynasty had to undertake Baseline studies and produce project designs before the National Environmental Protection Act - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) could be produced and a public comment period held. Only after all this was complete were the permits approved. The EIS was a major component of the process. It was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and used the project design submitted by Pebble. The EIS was used as a decision-making tool. It offered positive and negative environmental effects of the action and included alternatives such as a “no action alternative.”49 After the public was offered the chance to voice their concerns, the final decision could be made and permits approved. The Pebble Mine had yet to undergo the EIS as of 2012.50

Possible EPA Action

In 2010, several organizers asked the EPA to intervene.51 The request was for the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to limit the Pebble Mine development. Section 404 of the Act is a permit required to discharge dredged or fill material into U.S. waterways. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorizes such a permit; however, the EPA has the power to veto it at any stage in the permitting process -- including before an application for a permit is submitted -- if the proposal is believed to have “unacceptable adverse impacts on water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife or recreational areas.”52 The EPA has had the opportunity to veto thousands of permits since the Clean Water Act was passed in the 1970s. However, the agency had only used its veto power 13 times prior to 2010, and only one of those instances occurred prior to the permit application process.53

The Pebble Partnership had yet to apply for its permit and thus had not released its full plans. However, a representative at the EPA argued that there was precedent for the EPA to use a preemptive veto. In 1988, two of three sites comprising more than 400 acres in Florida’s Everglades had permit applications pending, but the third did not. In that situation, the EPA decided that it needed to veto all three due to the important wildlife habitat.54 Unlike the Everglades case, the Pebble Mine would be in a region that had both environmental and economic importance, making any possible action controversial. The use of a preemptive veto would not be outside of the realm of possibility due to prior precedent. The EPA had been conducting independent research in the region with regard to the implications of a potential mine since 2011, although no reports had been released as of early 2012.55

Transparency Case Studies

Other companies around the world have wrestled with the issue of transparency. There is a delicate balance to strike between disclosing information that could harm a corporate reputation, even if the company

1-430-511


9


is willing to address any controversy, and withholding information to guard against a public, political, or legal backlash. Addressing potential issues through transparency can lead to greater public credibility, but it can also open corporations to sanctions. How companies navigate this tension is a key strategic decision. Seabrook studied the two such cases -- Royal Dutch Shell and Nestle -- to learn from their experience in avoiding blowback and addressing potential human rights and environmental issues.

Royal Dutch Shell and the Brent Spar Incident

In 1995, Shell detailed its plans to abandon and sink its Brent Spar oil drilling platform in the North Sea. In an effort to promote transparency, Shell released data and scientific information outlining potential environmental impacts of submerging the platform, which it had found to be limited.56 With support from the British government, Shell sought to move forward with its plans.

Upon examining Shell’s data, Greenpeace mounted a fierce protest to marshal public opinion against the company’s plans to submerge the spar. Greenpeace activists occupied the spar and denounced Shell and the UK government’s support of the company.57 The situation became tense as activists were attacked with a water cannon and refused to vacate the rig.58 (See Exhibit 5)

Exhibit 5Royal Dutch Shell and Greenpeace Clashed Over Plans to Decommission the Brent

Spar Oil Rig

Source: Greenpeace International. “Shell Reverses Decision to Dump Brent Spar.” http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Victories-timeline/Brent-Spar/. Accessed 2/14/2017.

In waging its opposition to Shell, Greenpeace relied on an inaccurate assessment of Shell’s data regarding the quantity and toxicity of oil in the spar that could potentially be released into the ocean after its submergence.59

1-430-511


10


Despite their false claims, Greenpeace’s efforts were successful in stoking blowback against Shell. Large protests ensued across the European Union as Shell gas stations in Germany were vandalized, and government officials in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark called for the company to halt its plans.60 Some, like the Prime Minister of Denmark, called for a formal boycott of Shell.61

In the face of public opposition, Shell reversed its decision and agreed to dismantle the rig on land.62 Later that year, Greenpeace apologized to the company and admitted that its toxicity assessments and environmental impact estimates were inaccurate.63 Despite its apology, Clive Bates, a spokesman for Greenpeace stated publicly, “Our basic position has not changed one single iota. There is still a large amount of oil and toxic and radioactive waste on board and if that waste were in barrels they wouldn’t be allowed to bury it at sea.”64

Despite Shell’s attempt to increase transparency around corporate responsibility, perceived environmental damages dominated discussions around the company’s actions. The viability of Shell’s research did little to change negative public perceptions of the company. A backlash ensued, even though Shell’s opponents used their data inaccurately.

Slavery in Nestle’s Supply Chain

Not all transparency stories end unfavorably, however. Full disclosure can redound to a corporation’s benefit.

In 2015, Nestle -- the world’s largest food maker and an iconic household brand -- voluntarily announced to the world that an internal company investigation found forced labor at work in its seafood supply chain in Thailand. Posting its reports online, the company opened its findings to third parties for analysis and signaled a clear willingness to engage on the issue while also promising a year-long solution strategy that would begin to improve the situation. In its “unusual disclosure,” Nestle committed to a surprising level of self-policing, outing a major ethical issue in its supply chain without knowing how it would affect its image or business.

Though the risks were substantial, Nestle’s disclosure won widespread praise from the advocacy community. As reports at the time of the disclosure indicated, such levels of transparency were rare. Though many corporations investigate claims of unethical behavior, few publicize negative findings. That Nestle did so won it plaudits. One anti-trafficking group spokesperson called Nestle’s actions “exemplary.”65 Today, Nestle features the issue on its website’s “Ask Nestle” page.66

Nestle’s experience demonstrates the positive power of corporate transparency. First, it helps a firm earn credibility and goodwill. But more tangibly, proactive disclosure can also preempt damaging press or even unfavorable regulatory or legal actions. In fact, while Nestle earned widespread praise for its actions in this case, some wondered if it served to blunt the power of pending litigation against the company.67

Reports Released

In June of 2013, Pebble Partnership released documents containing the economic analysis of the project. Pebble Partnership estimated that the creation of the mine would result in 2,500 construction jobs over five years, and that the mine would generate as much as $180 million in annual taxes and royalties.68 In addition, Pebble Partnership released its Environmental Baseline Document (EBD), reporting on the physical, biological, and human environment of the Bristol Bay area. The document contained thousands of pages of information and data collected by the Pebble Partnership. The corporation claimed that the

1-430-511


11


document was the “cornerstone” of the permitting process, but many felt that the information provided did not sufficiently address many of the potential impacts the mine might have.69 Even though the document was approximately 20,000 pages long, some felt that it was missing several key elements of true scientific research. In addition, the data format in the EBD was difficult for scientists to evaluate and replicate findings. Concerned stakeholders claimed that, “responsible decisions about mining can’t be obtained if the related scientific data and methodology are unclear, if the investigation and analysis can’t be replicated, and if the dataset itself is murky, unmanageable, and closed to the scientific community, government, and the public.”70

Conclusion

Seabrook took another glance out of his office window at the Alaskan mountains soaring on the horizon. He was faced with a tough choice. His decision on the company’s level of transparency could have major implications for the Pebble Mine project, potentially inflaming the opposition to the project or bolstering the company’s credibility and calming enough nerves to grease the skids of the permitting process. Should Northern Dynasty release everything the company knew in a fully replicable way, or should the company sit on its data? What were the risks of each approach? How would stakeholders respond? Ultimately, how could Seabrook best advance Northern Dynasty’s interests? He took a deep breath before settling on a final decision.

1-430-511


12


Endnotes 1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commercial Fisheries Overview. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.

cfm?adfg=commercialbyareabristolbay.main. Accessed 12/10/2016.2 Narula, S. K. March 14, 2014. “Is Alaska’s Pebble Mine the Next Keystone XL?” The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/

archive/2014/03/is-alaskas-pebble-mine-the-next-keystone-xl/284251/. Accessed 12/10/2016.3 Somanader, T. December 16, 2014. “5 Things You Need to Know About Alaska’s Bristol Bay.” The White House Blog. https://www.

whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/16/5-things-you-need-know-about-alaskas-bristol-bay. Accessed 12/10/2016.4 Taylor, J. September 30, 2013. “Gina McCarthy Hopefully Kept Her Eyes Wide Open During Her Visit to Pebble Mine.” Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/30/gina-mccarthy-hopefully-kept-her-eyes-wide-open-during-her-visit-to-pebble-mine/#40788b976edb. Accessed 12/10/2016.

5 Warwick, J. February 15, 2015. “Pebble Mine Debate in Alaska: EPA Becomes Target by Planning for Rare Veto.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/internal-memos-spur-accusations-of-bias-as-epa-moves-to-block-gold-mine/2015/02/15/3ff101c0-b2ba-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html?utm_term=.9f6b52d3d5cb. Accessed 12/10/2016.

6 Prud-homme, A. April 24, 2012. “Politics and the Environment in Bristol Bay, Alaska.” Conde Nast Traveler. http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2012-04-24/bristol-bay-alaska-environment-salmon-wildlife-poltics. Accessed 12/10/2016.

7 Including Northern Dynasty, Anglo American, and Mitsubishi.8 PBS Frontline. July 24, 2012. “Alaska Gold.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/alaska-gold/. Accessed 12/10/2016.9 PBS Frontline. July 24, 2012. “Alaska Gold.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/alaska-gold/. Accessed 12/10/2016.10 United States Environmental Protection Agency. October 30, 2015. “An Examination of Potential Mining

Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska.” https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm;jsessionid=E09D83EA95AA7C7C25D58DE8CF7D5F99.cfpub?deid=241743&CFID=80634533&CFTOKEN=50589564. Accessed 12/10/2016.

11 Callan, C. J. June 27, 2013. “Native Alaska, Under Threat.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/native-culture-under-threat.html. Accessed 12/10/2016.

12 Callan, C. J. June 27, 2013. “Native Alaska, Under Threat.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/native-culture-under-threat.html. Accessed 12/10/2016.

13 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commercial Fisheries. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingcommercialbyfishery.main. Accessed 12/10/2016.

14 Chokshi, N. December 19, 2014. “Why Low Oil Prices Could Be Bad For Some States.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/12/19/why-low-oil-prices-could-be-bad-for-some-states/?utm_term=.d087c1d128ab. Accessed 12/10/2016

15 Miller, L., October 13, 2015. “Native Lives Matter, Too.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/native-lives-matter-too.html. Accessed 12/10/2016.

16 Taylor, J. September 30, 2013. “Gina McCarthy Hopefully Kept Her Eyes Wide Open During Her Visit to Pebble Mine.” Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/30/gina-mccarthy-hopefully-kept-her-eyes-wide-open-during-her-visit-to-pebble-mine/#40788b976edb. Accessed 12/10/2016.

17 PBS Frontline. July 24, 2012. “Alaska Gold.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/alaska-gold/. Accessed 12/10/2016.18 Council of Alaska Producers. History of Mining in Alaska. http://alaskaproducers.org/history-of-mining-in-alaska. Accessed

12/11/16.19 Alaska Miners Association. Major Mines. http://alaskaminers.org/major-mines/. Accessed 12/11/16.20 Alaska Humanities Forum. Mining. http://www.akhistorycourse.org/americas-territory/alaskas-heritage/chapter-4-15-mining.

Accessed 12/11/16.21 Goldfarb, Richard, and Miller, Lance (Eds.). 1997. Mineral Deposits of Alaska. Economic Geology Publishing Company. http://

geoscienceworld.org/content/mineral-deposits-of-alaska. Accessed 12/11/16.22 Ground Truth Trekking. Alaska Metals Mining. February 16, 2015. http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/MetalsMining.html.

Accessed 12/10/16.23 Matthew Smith. “Placer Mining in Alaska Big Business, Study Finds.” Alaska Public Media. http://www.alaskapublic.

org/2015/01/13/placer-mining-big-business-in-alaska-report-finds/. Accessed 12/11/16.24 Kitco. A Road Map to Technology Metals – Part 1: Precious Metals. August 29, 2013. http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2013-08-

22-A-Road-Map-To-Technology-Metals-Part-1-Precious-Metals.html. Accessed 12/10/16.25 Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd. The Pebble Project. Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd. http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/i/

pdf/ndm/NDM_FactSheet.pdf. Accessed 12/10/16.

1-430-511


13


26 Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd. The Pebble Project. Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd. http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/i/pdf/ndm/NDM_FactSheet.pdf. Accessed 12/10/16.

27 Brett Veerhusen. How Alaska’s Proposed Pebble Mine Conflict Could Shape Future Arctic Mineral Development. The Arctic Institute. February 1, 2016. http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/how-alaskas-proposed-pebble-mine-conflict-could-shape-future-arctic-mineral-development/. Accessed 12/10/16.

28 Alaska Clean Water Initiative. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. October 10, 2007. http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/opmp/mining/documents/Clean%20Water%20III.pdf. Accessed 12/10/16.

29 Brett Veerhusen. How Alaska’s Proposed Pebble Mine Conflict Could Shape Future Arctic Mineral Development. The Arctic Institute. February 1, 2016.

30 United Srares Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 6-K: Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd. July 31, 2007. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1164771/000116477107000007/ndm6k_073107.htm. Accessed 12/10/16.

31 Bradford Wieners. September 30, 2013. “Why Miners Walked Away From the Planet’s Richest Undeveloped Gold Deposit.” Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-27/why-anglo-american-walked-away-from-the-pebble-mine-gold-deposit. Accessed 12/10/16.

32 HIS and Pebble Limited Partnership. May 2013. The Economic and Employment Contributions of a Conceptual Pebble Mine to the Alaska and United States Economies. http://corporate.pebblepartnership.com/files/documents/study.pdf. Accessed 12/10/16.

33 Dave Chambers, Robert Moran, and Lance Trasky. January 2012. Bristol Bay’s Wild Salmon Ecosystems and the Pebble Mine: Key Considerations for a Large-Scale Mine Proposal. Wild Salmon Center. https://www.wildsalmoncenter.org/resources/pebble-mine-report-main-page/. Accessed 12/10/16.



36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Abandoned Mine Drainage. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/nps/abandoned-mine-drainage. Accessed 12/10/16.


38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska: Executive Summary. January 2014. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/bristol_bay_assessment_final_2014_es.pdf. Accessed 12/10/16. Pages 8-9.

39 Fishermen for Bristol Bay. The Economic Importance of the Bristol Bay Salmon Industry. n.d. http://fishermenforbristolbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ISER_Bristol-Bay_exec_20130513-2.pdf. Accessed 12/10/16; Jessica Goad, Shiva Polefka, Michael Conathan, and Christy Goldfuss. June 27, 2013. “Mining in Alaska’s Bristol Bay Region Threatens a Sustainable Economy.” Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2013/06/27/68127/mining-in-alaskas-bristol-bay-region-threatens-a-sustainable-economy-2/. Accessed 12/10/16.

40 Save Bristol Bay. Commercial Fishing. http://www.savebristolbay.org/commercial-fishing; https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2013/06/27/68127/mining-in-alaskas-bristol-bay-region-threatens-a-sustainable-economy-2/. Accessed 12/10/16.

41 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commercial Fisheries Overview. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareabristolbay.main. Accessed 12/10/16.

42 Northern Dynasty/Pebble Partnership. Plan: A Journey of a Thousand Miles. http://www.pebblepartnership.com/plan.html. Accessed 12/11/16.



45 Dave Chambers, Robert Moran, and Lance Trasky. January 2012. Bristol Bay’s Wild Salmon Ecosystems and the Pebble Mine: Key Considerations for a Large-Scale Mine Proposal. Wild Salmon Center. https://www.wildsalmoncenter.org/resources/pebble-mine-report-main-page/. Accessed 12/10/16. P. 88.

46 Heimer, T.K. July 1, 2015. “Dear Pebble Partnership, It’s Time to Walk Away From Bristol Bay.” Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/taryn-kiekow-heimer/dear-pebble-partnership-its-time-walk-away-bristol-bay. Accessed 12/10/16.

1-430-511


14


47 Heimer, T.K. July 1, 2015. “Dear Pebble Partnership, It’s Time to Walk Away From Bristol Bay.” Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/taryn-kiekow-heimer/dear-pebble-partnership-its-time-walk-away-bristol-bay. Accessed 12/10/16.


49 Pebble Watch. FAQ Regarding Pebble Mine and Pebble Watch. July 2, 2015. http://www.pebblewatch.com/index.php/faq. Accessed 12/10/16.




53 Warrick, J. February 15, 2015. Pebble Mine Debate in Alaska. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/internal-memos-spur-accusations-of-bias-as-epa-moves-to-block-gold-mine/2015/02/15/3ff101c0-b2ba-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html?utm_term=.47db70c19df2. Accessed 12/11/16.

54 Quinones, M. March 28, 2014. “Lawsuits come and go, but debate over EPA veto rages on.” E&E Publishing, LLC. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059996932. Accessed 12/11/16.


56 Mitchener, B. September 6, 1995. “Environmentalists Apologize to Shell for Using Faulty Data: Greenpeace Admits Slip on Oil Rig Risk.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/06/news/06iht-brent_.html. Accessed 12/10/16.

57 Greenpeace. Victories Timeline. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Victories-timeline/Brent-Spar/. Accessed 12/10/16.

58 Greenpeace. Victories Timeline. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Victories-timeline/Brent-Spar/. Accessed 12/10/16.

59 See footnote 62.60 Nash, N. June 17, 1995. “Oil Companies Face Boycott Over Sinking Rig.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.

com/1995/06/17/world/oil-companies-face-boycott-over-sinking-of-rig.html; Accessed 12/10/201661 Nash, N. June 17, 1995. “Oil Companies Face Boycott Over Sinking Rig.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/17/

world/oil-companies-face-boycott-over-sinking-of-rig.html. Accessed 12/10/16.62 Ibid.63 Ibid.64 Ibid.65 Associated Press. November 24, 2015. “Nestle Admits to Forced Labour in its Seafood Supply Chain in Thailand.” The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/24/nestle-admits-forced-labour-in-seafood-supply-chain. Accessed 12/10/16.

66 Nestle. Ask Nestle: Human Rights. http://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-rights/answers/nestle-child-labour-supply-chains. Accessed 12/10/16.

67 Annie Kelly. February 1, 2016. “Nestle Admits Slavery in Thailand While Fighting Child Labour Lawsuit in Ivory Coast.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/feb/01/nestle-slavery-thailand-fighting-child-labour-lawsuit-ivory-coast. Accessed 12/10/16.

68 Eilperin, J. June 1, 2013. “Alaska’s Bristol Bat Mine Project: Ground Zero for the Next Big Environmental Fight?” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/alaskas-bristol-bay-mine-project-ground-zero-for-the-next-big-environmental-fight/2013/06/01/c4f528e6-ca00-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html?utm_term=.7753d36e3446. Accessed 12/10/16.


70 Maria Renninger. “Mining for Data in the Bristol Bay Watershed.” Socrata, May 12, 2015. https://socrata.com/blog/mining-for-data-in-the-bristol-bay-watershed/. Accessed 12/8/2016.

1-430-511


15


Notes

1-430-511


The Erb Institute is committed to creating a socially and environmentally

sustainable society through the power of business. Building on nearly two

decades of research, teaching, and direct engagement, the Institute has become

one of the world’s leading sources of innovative knowledge on the culture,

technologies, operations and governance of business in a changing world.

http://erb.umich.edu

Established at the University of Michigan in 1992, the William Davidson Institute (WDI) is an independent, non-profit research and educational organization focused on

providing private-sector solutions in emerging markets. Through a unique structure

that integrates research, field-based collaborations, education/training, publishing,

and University of Michigan student opportunities, WDI creates long-term value for

academic institutions, partner organizations, and donor agencies active in emerging

markets. WDI also provides a forum for academics, policy makers, business leaders, and

development experts to enhance their understanding of these economies. WDI is one

of the few institutions of higher learning in the United States that is fully dedicated to

understanding, testing, and implementing actionable, private-sector business models

addressing the challenges and opportunities in emerging markets.

the challenges of transparency: communicating the pebble...

Documents