In June 2025, IPIS convened a workshop in Dar es Salaam, bringing together 11 civil society organizations (CSOs) to strengthen strategies and coordination for engaging with companies in the extractive sector. The event brought together both grassroots organizations working directly with communities living near extractive sites or infrastructure, and more policy-oriented CSOs engaged in advocacy and regulatory dialogue.
A rising standard: the push for meaningful engagement
Meaningful stakeholder engagement has become a key expectation for companies operating in the extractive industry. First outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, this standard has been further developed in several international frameworks. The 2017 OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector defines meaningful engagement as an ongoing, two-way process conducted in good faith and with responsiveness. It involves active stakeholder participation, genuine consideration of their views in decision-making, and follow-through on agreed commitments to address potential adverse impacts.
The flagship OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Mineral Supply Chains calls on companies to provide stakeholders with sufficient time and information to review and respond to risk assessments and management plans, ensuring their input genuinely shapes corporate due diligence in practice.
These principles are codified in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (currently under renegotiation), which mandates ongoing engagement throughout all stages of the due diligence process. Voluntary standards such as the IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining go even further. IRMA pushes companies to develop a stakeholder engagement plan, ensure engagement is culturally appropriate, establish feedback mechanisms to show how stakeholder input influences decisions, and support capacity-building to enable meaningful participation.
Another relevant actor is the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank Group and a key financier of extractive projects. Its Guidance Note on Land Acquisition and Voluntary Resettlement expects clients to consult affected communities from the earliest stages and to document how local input shapes decisions on resettlement and compensation. Importantly, the IFC framework provides civil society organizations with a formal accountability mechanism through the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), offering a strategic avenue to address grievances when standards are not upheld.
From tokenism to two-way engagement
In Tanzania, an increasing number of companies across the gold, diamond, oil, gas, and critical minerals sectors are now inviting CSOs to periodic engagement meetings. However, workshop participants noted that many of these efforts fall short of being truly meaningful. Too often, such engagements are treated as public relations exercises rather than opportunities for genuine dialogue to address community concerns. While companies must move beyond box-ticking approaches, CSOs also bear responsibility. There is a pressing need for stronger coordination between grassroots and policy-level organizations, a more proactive posture, and engagement grounded in evidence and assertiveness.
The two-day workshop offered a space to share experiences, identify good practices, and explore common challenges in engaging with extractive companies. With mounting global and local scrutiny of the sector’s social and environmental impacts, effective CSO involvement is more vital than ever.
A recurring issue raised was the imbalance in engagement meetings, where corporate agendas dominate. CSOs are rarely given space to present their findings or research, with sessions typically revolving around company presentations on their policies or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs. One participant voiced skepticism:
“At times, these meetings feel like they’re mainly meant to shape what we say if journalists ask us questions. We’re often only invited when there’s a challenge—like negative media coverage or visits from international stakeholders.”
Another participant added:
“Often we are invited last minute. We travel to the meeting without knowing the agenda, and only receive it upon arrival. How can we properly prepare, let alone present inputs or suggest changes?”
Principles and pitfalls
Another important frustration raised by participants was the lack of responsiveness from companies during and after engagement meetings. CSOs reported that their recommendations and questions frequently go unanswered.
“Company representatives often tell us they will come back to the issues we raise in the next meeting, but then they don’t follow up, and we hear nothing more about it.”
This lack of follow-through undermines trust and reinforces the perception that these engagements are largely symbolic rather than substantive.
The risk of conflicts of interest also emerged as a key concern. Companies sometimes sub-contract certain CSOs for project implementation—such as livelihood restoration or legal aid. While these roles are valuable, they can blur the lines between service delivery and advocacy, causing mistrust within civil society and affected communities. Several participants voiced concerns that CSOs working under corporate contracts may shift their allegiances or leak sensitive information. This perceived loss of neutrality threatens the credibility of civil society and raises questions about its ability to contribute to meaningful accountability processes.
In addition, many CSOs reported the loss of institutional capacity, as skilled staff are increasingly recruited by companies. While this highlights the growing value of CSO expertise, it can significantly weaken organizations that play a vital role in monitoring and accountability.
“I’ve already lost two staff members, one to the extractive company and another to a CSO implementing a project on the company’s behalf. I was even offered a position myself that was almost too good to refuse, but I chose to stay and continue my work within civil society.”
The way ahead
A key outcome of the workshop was the development of rules of engagement, outlining shared objectives, principles, modalities, and conditions for meaningful CSO participation in extractive sector dialogue. Participants also began exploring ways to safeguard independence and strengthen collaboration, including pooled funding for travel, support for joint monitoring efforts, and improved coordination mechanisms to facilitate information sharing and proactive engagement.
Participants concluded that the workshop marked an important step in strengthening ties between grassroots and policy-level CSOs. It laid the groundwork for more strategic, coordinated, and principled civil society engagement in Tanzania’s extractive sector.
“Empowering Tanzanian communities and civil society for fostered justice & human rights in natural resource governance” is implemented by IPIS, in partnership with Avocats Sans Frontières, Business and Human Rights Tanzania and HakiRasilimali, with the support of the Belgian Directorate-General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (DGD).
