kinanâskomitinawaw

I offer my deepest thanks to the many Elders, Knowledge Keepers, Youth, and business and community leaders who shared their time, stories, and teachings with me in the development of this case study. These conversations were offered with generosity, care, and a deep sense of responsibility to future generations. I am grateful for the trust placed in me to listen and to carry these words forward in a good way. This work is grounded in your voices, and I hold them with respect.

“Reconciliation starts with acknowledging Indigenous Peoples’ rights.”

– First Nation Youth

Canada’s energy transition is increasingly shaped by large-scale energy, mining, and infrastructure projects intended to reduce emissions, support electrification, and expand clean energy systems. These projects are often located on or near lands and waters where First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Peoples¹ hold inherent rights, responsibilities, and governing authority. As a result, Canada’s advances towards clean growth and adaptation are not only a matter of technological change or emissions reduction, but also a question of how development decisions intersect with Indigenous jurisdiction.

Corporate disclosures have become an important mechanism through which governments, investors, and the public understand how companies manage environmental and social risks. Sustainability reports, financial statements, and other public filings are increasingly relied upon to signal whether projects align with climate objectives, regulatory expectations, and broader public interest. Within these systems, companies often describe their relationships with Indigenous Peoples as part of their approach to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting.

However, these disclosures do more than simply communicate information. They shape how Indigenous Peoples’ rights are understood by external audiences and influence how authority, responsibility, and legitimacy are understood within climate policy systems. 

Yet, there is growing concern that existing disclosure frameworks do not adequately capture the realities of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Corporate reporting frequently emphasizes consultation processes, partnerships, or community investments while providing limited visibility into questions of jurisdiction, consent, and Indigenous authority over land and resources. In doing so, disclosures may frame Indigenous Nations primarily as stakeholders affected by projects, rather than as governments whose jurisdiction shapes whether and how development proceeds. It approaches corporate disclosure not only as a transparency tool, but as a governance mechanism that can either reveal or obscure the role of Indigenous Peoples in shaping climate-related development in Canada.

This case study examines how the architecture of corporate disclosure intersects with Indigenous jurisdiction. Rather than focusing solely on whether companies report on Indigenous issues, this analysis considers how reporting frameworks influence whose authority is recognized within climate policy. In doing so, it highlights the importance of transparency around Indigenous jurisdiction, consent, and governance relationships in shaping credible climate accountability. 

The study asks a foundational question for climate governance:

When Canada writes its climate future, who is holding the pen?

In other words, who has the authority to define how climate decisions are made, whose governance systems are recognized in those decisions, and whose perspectives are reflected in the information used by investors, policymakers, and the public?

A dialogue-based approach bringing together the perspectives of over 50 Indigenous Elders, Youth², business, and community leaders engaged in climate policy, governance, and economic development was used to explore this question. These conversations, alongside an examination of corporate disclosures in Canada’s public markets, inform an analysis of how Indigenous participants understand climate accountability and where existing disclosure practices fall short. Together, they not only reveal gaps in reporting, but also a deeper question of authorship: who is shaping the narrative, and whose governance systems are being written into Canada’s climate future.

Climate policy is implemented through infrastructure on Indigenous lands

Climate policy is often expressed through legislation, targets, and national strategic plans³, but it is realized through projects. Permits must be granted. Land must be accessed. Capital must be deployed. In this shift from policy to project, implementation depends just as much on jurisdictional alignment as it does on engineering and project design.

Across Canada, efforts to reduce emissions and advance economic development are reshaping land. The infrastructure required to meet Canada’s emissions targets overlaps with Indigenous Peoples’ territories.

Climate mitigation, adaptation, and clean growth projects operate within existing systems of Indigenous jurisdiction, treaty relationships, and rights.

These projects take place on lands where Indigenous Nations hold inherent rights and responsibilities relating to land, water, and air. In these contexts, climate policy intersects directly with Indigenous governance systems that predate the Canadian state and continue to shape decisions about land use and resource development. The energy transition is not only a technical or economic undertaking, it requires navigating relationships between federal and provincial regulatory regimes, corporate actors, and self-determining Indigenous Peoples.

Across Canada, Indigenous Peoples are engaging with climate-related development in diverse ways. Some Nations are pursuing ownership or partnership opportunities in renewable energy, transmission infrastructure, and resource projects as part of broader economic development strategies. Others are raising concerns about the environmental, cultural, and governance implications of proposed developments on their territories. In many cases, Nations are doing both: balancing economic participation with the protection of lands, waters, and cultural responsibilities.

Research released in 2021 found that Indigenous communities represent the third-largest owners of clean energy assets in the country, following Crown and private utilities. This underscores a central feature of the transition: project approvals, development timelines, and operating are often shaped by Indigenous governance processes, negotiated agreements, and the recognition of rights affirmed through treaties, court decisions, and modern land claims.

Despite this, Indigenous Peoples’ rights are not always clearly reflected in the public narratives surrounding climate-related development. Policy discussions frequently focus on emissions outcomes, investment flows, and regulatory approvals, while the jurisdictional dimensions of Indigenous Peoples remain less visible. This creates a gap between the realities that shape projects on the ground, and the information made available to policymakers, investors, and the public.

One place where this gap becomes particularly evident is within corporate reporting. Sustainability reports, climate disclosures, and investor communications often provide insight into how companies describe their relationships with Indigenous Peoples. How these relationships are framed, however, shapes whether Indigenous authority in development decisions is recognized, minimized or obscured.

Corporate disclosures should centre Indigenous Nations as rightsholders, not stakeholders

As governments introduce climate policies, companies are using corporate disclosure as a tool to communicate how they plan to manage risks associated with their operations. In recent years, ESG reporting frameworks have become widely used tools for communicating how firms approach issues such as emissions reduction, biodiversity impacts, and relationships with Indigenous Peoples⁴.

These disclosures serve multiple audiences. Investors rely on them to evaluate long-term risks and opportunities. Policymakers use them to understand how companies are responding to regulatory expectations and climate commitments. Civil society organizations and affected communities often draw on them to assess corporate claims about environmental performance and social responsibility. As a result, corporate reporting increasingly shapes how climate accountability is interpreted within financial markets and public policy discussions.

Within land-intensive sectors such as energy, mining, utilities, and other infrastructure development, disclosures frequently address relationships with Indigenous Peoples as part of broader sustainability activities. Companies often highlight engagement processes, partnerships, employment initiatives, or economic participation agreements with Indigenous communities. These disclosures can signal a company’s awareness of the social and governance dimensions of resource development and may reflect efforts to build relationships with Indigenous Nations.

At the same time, the way these relationships are represented in corporate reporting can influence how the governance context of development projects is understood. In many cases, corporate reports frame Indigenous Peoples as stakeholders who are potentially affected by development, rather than as self-determining governments with inherent jurisdiction over lands and resources. Reporting may emphasize engagement activities, scholarships, or community investments without providing clarity on how Indigenous Peoples’ rights are considered in shaping project approvals or operations.

This framing matters because corporate disclosures do not simply describe relationships; they help construct the narrative through which development decisions are interpreted by external audiences. Investors, policymakers, and the public rely on publicly available disclosures when assessing whether projects align with environmental standards, regulatory requirements, and broader societal expectations. If Indigenous Peoples’ rights are not clearly reflected in these disclosures, the resulting narrative may obscure the structural importance of Indigenous authority in shaping project outcomes.

In this way, corporate reporting systems can influence how clean growth projects are understood across policy and financial domains. When disclosures emphasize partnership or engagement with Indigenous Peoples without addressing consent or jurisdictional authority, they can frame these issues as matters of community relations, rather than legal questions of governance and rights.

Corporate disclosures are inconsistent and rarely address Indigenous rights

To understand how Indigenous Peoples’ rights are represented within corporate disclosure systems, the public reports of companies listed on the S&P/TSX Composite Index were examined in 2025. The analysis focused on how companies described their relationships with Indigenous Peoples, and whether those relationships were framed as material governance or risk considerations.

The review included sustainability reports, financial statements, websites, and other publicly available reports produced by companies. While the full index was analyzed, particular attention was paid to land-intensive sectors such as energy, mining, forestry and utilities, where corporate activities most frequently intersect with Indigenous territories and resource governance systems.

Of the 220 companies in the TSX Composite Index examined in 2025, 70 per cent made some type of disclosure relating to Indigenous Peoples⁶. However, only 24 per cent identified Indigenous Peoples, rights, or engagement as a risk factor within their financial statements. Sustainability reports often served as the primary entry point for discussion, with 34 per cent of companies noting Indigenous Peoples as a material topic⁷.

Across these disclosures, there was a large variation in how Indigenous Peoples were described. Companies used a wide range of terms, including “Indigenous communities,” “Indigenous groups,” “local communities,” and, in some cases, more general references such as “stakeholders”. The choice of language matters. Inappropriate language can blur the jurisdictional authority of Indigenous Peoples, particularly where general terms like “groups,” “communities” or “stakeholders” are used instead of specific language that reflects inherent rights or self-governing authority. As such, how Indigenous Peoples are named in disclosures can shape how their role in development is understood.

Disclosures tended to emphasize cultural awareness-based activities, particularly in education, sponsorship, and cultural initiatives. By contrast, disclosures detailing activities that respected Indigenous Peoples’ rights were comparatively rare.

Only 11 per cent of issuers mentioned Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)—one of the fundamental aspects of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)—with only five issuers (two per cent) making public commitments to obtain FPIC prior to beginning any new projects.

This gap between narrative references and formal risk recognition highlights an important feature of current disclosure practices. While many companies acknowledge relationships with Indigenous Peoples as part of broader sustainability narratives, relatively few integrate Indigenous rights-related considerations into the core risk frameworks that inform investor decision-making and corporate accountability.

The distinction is significant because the placement of information within corporate reporting carries meaning. Sustainability narratives often emphasize positive stories, celebration of Indigenous days of significance, or community investments. Risk disclosures in the financial statements, by contrast, signal issues that companies consider capable of affecting project timelines, regulatory approvals, or financial performance. When Indigenous Peoples are discussed primarily within narrative-based sustainability reports, the structural role of Indigenous authority in shaping project outcomes may remain less visible to external audiences.

Ultimately, the analysis suggests that current, voluntary, corporate disclosures provide an incomplete picture of the governance dynamics that influence development decisions on Indigenous territories. Projects within land-intensive sectors frequently depend on relationships with Indigenous Nations, including negotiated agreements, regulatory processes involving Indigenous authorities, and evolving legal standards relating to Indigenous rights. Yet these realities are not always reflected in the way companies publicly communicate climate-related risks and responsibilities.

When disclosures omit whether FPIC has been obtained, whether co-governance agreements exist, or how Indigenous equity participation affects control and cash flow, investors receive incomplete information on which to make decisions.

As a result, investors and policymakers who rely on corporate disclosures as indicators of climate accountability may encounter narratives that emphasize partnership or engagement while offering limited visibility into questions of jurisdiction, authority, and consent. Understanding how these dynamics shape climate governance requires moving beyond disclosure statistics to consider how Indigenous Peoples themselves interpret the role of corporate reporting within broader accountability systems.

Indigenous perspectives on what corporate disclosures reveal and obscure

To complement the analysis of corporate disclosures, this case study draws on conversations with over 50 Indigenous Elders, Youth, business and community leaders engaged in climate governance, economic development, and corporate engagement. These dialogues explored how Indigenous participants interpret the content, impact, and accountability of these disclosures and how corporate disclosures align with their experiences of climate-related development on their territories.

Participants focused on how disclosure practices shape the visibility of Indigenous Peoples’ rights within climate decision-making. Across interviews, several themes emerged that illuminate how Indigenous perspectives understand the relationship between corporate reporting and climate accountability.

Finding 1: Companies control how relationships with Indigenous Peoples are presented in disclosures 

“You’re not actually seeing evidence of the relationship, you’re seeing the narrative the company wants investors to believe.” – First Nation business leader

Participants frequently emphasized that corporate disclosures play a powerful role in shaping public narratives about development projects and Indigenous relationships. Sustainability reports and investor communications often present a carefully curated account of engagement processes, partnerships, and community investments. While these narratives may reflect genuine efforts at relationship-building, participants noted that they are ultimately produced and controlled by the companies themselves.

This dynamic creates an imbalance in how relationships are represented publicly. Corporate disclosures often emphasize positive engagement outcomes while providing limited visibility into areas of disagreement, governance negotiations, or unresolved concerns. As a result, disclosures can present projects as more resolved than they are, thereby obscuring ongoing negotiation, disagreement, and the conditions under which decisions are made.

Interview participants described this as a question of narrative authority. When companies control the primary channels through which project relationships are communicated to investors and policymakers, Indigenous Peoples’ experiences may be partially visible but not fully or accurately represented.

Finding 2: Corporate disclosures create the appearance of transparency while obscuring Indigenous rights

“If they don’t have UNDRIP and FPIC in the report, it’s a piece of paper.”

– Métis business leader

A second theme that emerged across dialogues was the distinction between symbolic transparency and meaningful accountability. Participants observed that many companies now reference Indigenous Peoples within sustainability reporting, reflecting growing expectations around environmental, social, and governance performance. However, these references do not always provide insight into how Indigenous rights are factored into project decisions.

Examples raised in conversations included disclosures that describe consultation activities, relationship-building efforts, or community investments without explaining whether Indigenous Nations hold decision-making authority over project approvals, conditions, or monitoring processes. In these cases, reporting may demonstrate awareness of Indigenous issues while leaving key governance questions unresolved.

Participants noted that this type of information can create the appearance of transparency without necessarily clarifying how decisions are made by governments, companies, and Indigenous Peoples. When information about jurisdiction, consent processes, or governance agreements is absent, external audiences may struggle to distinguish between symbolic or performative activities and genuine decision-making authority.

From this perspective, the challenge is not simply whether companies disclose information about Indigenous Peoples, but whether disclosures provide sufficient context to understand how Indigenous Peoples’ rights shape project outcomes.

Finding 3: Corporate disclosures focus on regulatory compliance rather than Indigenous rights

A third theme highlighted in these conversations concerned the distribution of responsibility within climate-related development. Participants noted that corporate disclosures often position federal governments as the primary authority responsible for addressing Indigenous rights and regulatory obligations. Under this framing, companies may present themselves as operating within existing regulatory frameworks while emphasizing compliance with government-led consultation processes.

However, participants emphasized that development decisions often involve navigating complex governance relationships that extend beyond regulatory requirements. Indigenous Nations may exercise authority through negotiated agreements, co-governance processes, or through their rights affirmed through treaties and court decisions. These governance systems can influence whether projects proceed, how they are structured, and how impacts are managed over time.

“Companies talk about consultation as if that’s the full story, but respecting [Indigenous Peoples’] jurisdiction isn’t a box to check. Whether a project moves forward requires consent, not just a permit.” – First Nation Knowledge-Keeper

However, when corporate disclosures frame Indigenous issues primarily as regulatory or reputational considerations, they may obscure the extent to which Indigenous rights shape the conditions that projects operate under. Participants therefore emphasized that corporate disclosures can present a simplified account of responsibility, one that does not provide visibility into how companies consider Indigenous rights in decision-making in practice.

Taken together, interview participants suggested that corporate disclosure systems play an important role in shaping how climate accountability is interpreted by policymakers, investors, and the public. When reporting emphasizes engagement narratives while providing limited visibility into governance relationships, it may reinforce an incomplete understanding of how climate-related development is negotiated and governed on Indigenous lands.

The final section considers how these insights inform broader discussions about climate accountability and policy design.

Policy implications: Rethinking climate governance systems

The findings from both the disclosure analysis and Indigenous dialogues highlight an important challenge: corporate disclosures do not fully capture the governance realities that shape development on Indigenous lands, even though they are a central source of information for investors, regulators, and policymakers seeking to understand how companies are managing climate-related risks and responsibilities.

Improving the visibility of Indigenous rights within sustainability reporting requires more than incremental changes to existing disclosure frameworks. It calls for the development of a distinct reporting standard authored by Indigenous rightsholders themselves. 

Such a standard must be grounded in comprehensive, community-based research and informed by Indigenous laws, governance systems, and lived experience. It cannot be developed through conventional standard-setting processes in which a standard setter designs the framework and then seeks feedback through consultation. Nor can it be produced through limited engagement led by a small group of consultants. Instead, its development must involve broad, nation-wide participation by Indigenous Nations and organizations, carried out in a manner that respects and aligns with diverse community protocols and governance structures. Only through this process can Indigenous Nations define what is disclosed, how it is disclosed, and the terms through which accountability is understood.

For policymakers and regulators, this reality is particularly relevant as climate policies increasingly rely on large-scale infrastructure and resource development. Understanding how Indigenous governance systems interact with corporate actors and regulatory frameworks can help ensure that climate policy implementation reflects the governance realities of the lands and waters where projects occur.

For investors and financial institutions, improved transparency around Indigenous rights may also support more accurate assessments of long-term project risk and legitimacy. Development projects that intersect with Indigenous territories often depend on negotiated governance arrangements and evolving legal standards relating to Indigenous rights. When these dynamics are not clearly reflected in corporate disclosures, external audiences may underestimate the factors that influence project timelines, regulatory approvals, and operational stability.

Ultimately, the question of climate accountability extends beyond emissions reporting and environmental performance. It also concerns how authority, responsibility, and decision-making are represented within the systems that document climate-related development. As the climate transition accelerates, ensuring that these systems accurately reflect Indigenous Peoples’ rights will be an increasingly important component of credible climate policy and corporate accountability.

In this sense, the question of who holds the pen is not merely about the authorship of corporate reports. It is about whose authority is visible within the systems that define climate accountability.