The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA), in force since 2015, has by now become a familiar fixture in the compliance landscape of Canada’s mining, oil, and gas industries. But if the legislation’s first years were marked by firms simply finding their feet with its basic requirements, 2020 brought a noticeable shift in both tone and substance. This was the year when disclosures began to reflect not only mechanical adherence to the law’s provisions but also a more deliberate engagement with the broader societal expectations around resource governance and Indigenous benefit sharing.
An initial scan of 2020’s ESTMA filings reveals patterns that merit closer attention. Among mining companies in particular, the practice of reporting payments to Indigenous governments—mandatory under the Act when such payments exceed prescribed thresholds—gained new prominence. One might argue that this wasn’t driven solely by regulatory obligation. The growing national conversation about reconciliation, coupled with high-profile disputes over resource projects and Indigenous consent, likely contributed to firms taking greater care in how such disclosures were prepared and presented.
It’s worth noting, however, that the level of detail varied widely across reports. Some companies confined themselves to terse tables listing payment amounts alongside the names of recipient communities or councils. Others went further, offering narrative explanations of how payments arose, what agreements governed them, and how these funds contributed to community priorities. This divergence hints at differing philosophies about what ESTMA compliance should look like. Is it a box-ticking exercise? Or an opportunity to demonstrate genuine accountability and partnership? There didn’t appear to be a universal answer in 2020, and perhaps that’s to be expected in a regulatory space where the formal requirements leave room for interpretation.
For companies seeking to align their reporting more closely with both the letter and the spirit of ESTMA, Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) open data portal has become an increasingly valuable resource. The portal provides access to detailed information on mineral revenues and production volumes—data that can help firms contextualize their payment disclosures and verify that reported figures align with broader revenue patterns. Some companies have begun integrating references to NRCan’s datasets directly into their sustainability reports, framing their disclosures within the wider landscape of Canada’s extractive sector economics. This move, subtle as it might seem, reflects an emerging norm where transparency is measured not only by what is reported but also by how intelligibly it is connected to public data sources.
Of course, the use of NRCan data is not without its complications. The datasets, while rich, can be complex to navigate, particularly for firms operating multiple properties across different jurisdictions and commodity types. There have been cases where companies, eager to demonstrate alignment with open data benchmarks, inadvertently introduced inconsistencies between their ESTMA reports and other public statements. This isn’t to suggest bad faith; more often, it points to the challenges of harmonizing datasets that were never designed to fit together seamlessly. For reporting teams, the lesson has been clear enough: cross-checking figures meticulously before publication is no longer optional.
A related development in 2020 was the growing use of “community benefit sharing” tables in corporate sustainability reports. While not formally required under ESTMA, these tables have emerged as a best practice among firms aiming to present a fuller picture of their contributions to Indigenous communities. Typically, such tables list not just payments reported under ESTMA but also voluntary contributions, in-kind support, training investments, and other forms of benefit provision. The aim, one senses, is to tell a more complete story—one that captures both the regulatory and relational dimensions of a company’s presence on Indigenous lands.
Designing these tables, however, is more art than science. Firms have to navigate sensitive questions about what to include, how to categorize different types of support, and how to balance transparency with respect for community privacy and preferences. Some companies have chosen to co-develop these tables with Indigenous partners, seeking input on how benefits should be described and contextualized. Others have opted for a more unilateral approach, structuring the tables according to internal reporting systems or investor expectations. Either way, the trend points to a growing recognition that ESTMA compliance, while necessary, is not by itself sufficient to meet stakeholder demands for accountability.
What’s also striking in reviewing 2020’s reports is how these disclosures have begun to intersect with other regulatory and voluntary frameworks. Several firms explicitly referenced their ESTMA data in relation to their obligations under the UN Global Compact, the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) initiative, or corporate commitments to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This layering of standards can be challenging to manage, to be sure. Yet it also suggests that ESTMA reporting is increasingly seen not as an isolated compliance task but as part of a wider ecosystem of transparency and responsible business conduct.
It would be premature, perhaps, to suggest that ESTMA reporting has fully matured or that all firms approach it with the same level of rigor and openness. There remain notable disparities in disclosure practices, and questions about consistency and comparability persist. Nonetheless, 2020 appears to have marked a step forward in how extractive companies interpret their transparency obligations—not just as a matter of legal compliance but as a reflection of their social license to operate.