From Operator to Advocate
By: Sarah Erkmann Ward, APR, president of Thompson & Co.’s advocacy arm Blueprint.
Before the permit, there’s the public
Resource development in Alaska has never been simple. Companies operate in remote and often unforgiving conditions, mitigate real environmental risks, and navigate a political landscape that can shift quickly and unpredictably. Over time, most operators have learned how to manage these challenges, building the technical expertise and operational discipline needed to succeed.
What has changed is everything surrounding the operation.
Today, whether a project moves forward is no longer determined by engineering and capital investment alone. Public perception plays an increasingly meaningful role, influencing policy decisions and shaping stakeholder relationships that can reinforce or undermine a project. All those factors are affected, at least in part, by how well a company communicates and what messages it shares. Communications now sits much closer to the center of the business and belongs at the table where decisions are made.
The problem hiding in plain sight
Everyone inside the industry sees the impact. Outside it, the picture is unclear
Spend any time in the resource development industry and the impact is obvious. This industry supports thousands of jobs, funds a significant portion of state government, and drives investment into communities across Alaska. Inside the industry, that story is well understood, but outside of it, the connection is often incomplete.
Many Alaskans and policymakers do not fully connect resource development to the services and long-term stability it supports. At the same time, competing narratives — especially those focused on environmental risk — are simpler and easier to repeat. Those narratives tend to gain traction more quickly, creating a gap between what companies are doing and how that work is perceived. In Alaska, that gap shows up in policy debates, ballot measures, and long-term investment decisions.
Why “Get the Facts” means you’re already losing
If the message doesn’t land the first time, more information won’t fix it
Most companies publish detailed information about their operations, including production data, tax contributions, and safety performance. That information matters.
The more useful question is whether it is landing with the right audiences. If a company feels the need to include a section titled “Get the Facts,” it is often a sign that the core message is not getting through. The issue is rarely access to information. It is the absence of a clear connection between that information and what people care about in their daily lives.
Most audiences are not looking to interpret technical data. They are trying to understand what a project means for their community, their job opportunities, and the future of the state. When that connection is missing, additional data does little to change the outcome.
Trust doesn’t show up on command
By the time a project becomes controversial, most opinions are set
In Alaska, being a capable operator is expected. Statements about simply meeting legal requirements rarely resonate.
What separates organizations over time is trust, which is built gradually through consistency, transparency, and relationships. Communities, Alaska Native organizations, local businesses, and elected officials all play a role in shaping how a company is viewed, and those perspectives tend to form well before a project becomes the focus of public attention.
Because of that, trust is rarely established during a crisis or in the middle of a permitting process. By that point, most stakeholders have already formed an opinion about the company behind the project based on prior experience.
The messenger matters more than the message
People believe those closest to the work
Another shift worth paying attention to is who carries influence in these conversations.
Companies continue to communicate directly, but that voice no longer carries the same weight it once did. Research from the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer shows that people place more trust in employees, peers, and local stakeholders than in institutions speaking from the top down. That finding reflects what happens in Alaska every day.
An Alaskan is far more likely to trust the worker in the field wearing a hardhat than the executive speaking from an office. A local employer explaining what development means for their workforce carries weight. A community leader describing a long-standing partnership carries weight. These perspectives resonate because they are grounded in direct experience and reflect relationships that have been built over time.
How you lose the narrative before the debate begins
By the time you respond, the story is already taking shape
Most major policy issues follow a familiar pattern. A proposal is introduced, a narrative begins to take shape, and positions start to harden before the broader public is fully engaged. By the time companies respond, the terms of the debate are often already established.
Operating in a reactive posture makes it difficult to influence outcomes. A more effective approach begins earlier by understanding how issues are being discussed, where gaps in knowledge exist, and who is shaping the conversation. It also requires coordination across communications, government affairs, and community engagement so that messaging is aligned and consistent.
This kind of early engagement increases the likelihood that resource development’s role and impact are understood while decisions are being considered.
In Alaska, everything comes back to the community
Local trust carries the most weight
Statewide messaging and national narratives play a role, but they do not replace what happens at the community level.
For communities closest to development, the questions are immediate and practical. They focus on subsistence, environmental stewardship, and whether a company is committed to a long-term presence. These concerns shape how projects are received.
Companies that engage early and often, listen carefully, and follow through tend to build trust that endures. Those that do not often find themselves trying to establish credibility at the same moment they face increased scrutiny.
The bottom line
Support is earned, not summoned
In Alaska, the license to operate is reinforced over time through actions, communication, and consistency.
Companies that succeed tend to explain their impact in clear terms, invest in relationships early, and maintain a consistent presence across stakeholders. When challenges arise, they are not introducing themselves or building support under pressure. They can rely on a network of partners who already understand their role and are willing to speak up for it, often without asking.
That kind of support reflects sustained effort over time and it often makes the difference when projects face scrutiny or when key decisions are being made.