From Promises to Proof: Indigenous Data Sovereignty as the New ESG Standard
Author’s note (April 23 2025) – I didn’t plan on posting this for a few weeks but today’s developments made it impossible to keep it on the shelf.
The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) just paused work on its proposed mandatory climate- and diversity-related disclosure rules, citing “rapidly and significantly changed” market conditions.Canadian Securities Administrators
Within hours, the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) responded, stressing that “regulatory approaches may evolve” even as demand for credible sustainability information keeps rising.Newswire
Watching two of Canada’s main standard-setting bodies pivot so quickly confirms the core argument in the piece that follows: unless Indigenous Peoples are the ones governing how Indigenous impact data are defined, assured, and disclosed, those rules will always be vulnerable to shifting political winds. That is precisely why the Pehta Framework—built and stewarded by First Nations—matters. It anchors ESG disclosure in rights-holder governance and Indigenous Data Sovereignty, providing a stable foundation that market-driven or regulator-driven standards alone can’t deliver. With that context, here is “From Promises to Proof: Indigenous Data Sovereignty as the New ESG Standard.”
A Turning Point for Indigenous ESG Accountability
In Canada’s resource and infrastructure sectors, a quiet revolution is underway. Corporate claims of Indigenous inclusion—once confined to glossy reports and good intentions—are facing a credibility reckoning. Regulators, investors, and Indigenous communities are all demanding the same thing: proof. With new sustainability disclosure rules coming into effect, companies can no longer rely on self-styled narratives. It’s no longer enough to say “We support Indigenous communities”; one must show it with data. And critically, that data must be governed and verified by Indigenous communities themselves to carry any real trust or weight.
This article builds on the case we made earlier for Indigenous Impact Statements over traditional impact reports. We argued that an Indigenous Impact Statement, aligned with a First Nations–governed standard (the Pehta Framework), transforms aspirational stories into auditable facts (pehta.org). Now, we take that conversation further—into the realm of data sovereignty, assurance, and regulatory integration. We explore how the Pehta Framework operationalizes the First Nations principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) (fnigc.ca), providing a mechanism for Indigenous communities to own and control their data and, in doing so, offering a new gold standard for credible ESG reporting in Canada. We will see how Pehta Statements (formal Indigenous Impact Statements) deliver Indigenous-led assurance and auditability, directly addressing trust gaps in Canada’s new Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Standards (CSDS 1 and 2). Finally, we’ll position this Indigenous-driven approach within the broader landscape of ESG regulation—touching on the ISSB global baseline, the EU’s CSRD, and the rising investor demands for third-party assurance—to show why Indigenous Data Sovereignty is not just a cultural ideal, but a practical foundation for the future of ESG disclosures.
OCAP® and Indigenous Data Sovereignty: More Than a Checklist
Any meaningful discussion of Indigenous participation in ESG must start with Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Indigenous communities have long asserted that they must have control over data about their people, lands, and well-being. This is crystallized in the First Nations principles of OCAP®, which stand for Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession. In essence, OCAP® asserts that First Nations have absolute jurisdiction over how data about them is collected, used, and shared (fnigc.ca). They own their information collectively, control all data management processes, must have access to data about themselves, and ideally maintain possession of databases or records as a means of asserting ownership (fnigc.ca). These principles are a cornerstone of Indigenous self-determination in the information age – a way to ensure that data serves their community interests first and foremost.
What does this mean in the context of ESG reporting? It means that metrics related to Indigenous peoples cannot be credible or ethical if they are defined and handled solely by companies or outside agencies without Indigenous oversight. As a 2022 report on Indigenous peoples and ESG by Statistics Canada concluded, ESG frameworks need to include Indigenous values, and the development of Indigenous-related ESG indicators should be Indigenous-led (statcan.gc.ca). In other words, Indigenous communities must be the ones to say what counts as impact, how it’s measured, and how the data is controlled. Without this leadership, ESG disclosures risk perpetuating a colonial pattern—outsiders telling Indigenous stories with outsider metrics.
This is where the Pehta Framework enters the picture as a game-changer. Developed under the guidance of First Nations leaders and technicians, Pehta is explicitly designed to uphold OCAP® principles in practice. It is a First Nation–governed standard for reporting on Indigenous community benefits (afn.bynder.com). Practically, this means Indigenous representatives collectively steward the metrics and data requirements, aligning them with what communities actually care about. As an Assembly of First Nations resolution describes, “The Pehta Foundation was established to create, govern, and steward the standards by which industry and government report to First Nations, ensuring metrics align with our Nations’ desired outcomes. Metrics must resonate with our Nations first before they resonate with anyone else.” (afn.bynder.com). In short, Pehta flips the script: Indigenous Peoples are the authorities on what evidence of impact should be collected and reported (afn.bynder.com), and companies are expected to follow that lead.
Indigenous ownership and control is central to the framework. While data submitted under Pehta standards (for example, on Indigenous employment or contracting) is shared with the affiliated Indigenous communities through tools like the Pehta Integrity App for real-time awareness, this operates within a robust entitlement framework. This framework balances the right of Indigenous communities to be informed about claims made about them with the need to protect the data and intellectual property of industry and government partners. The Pehta Integrity App embodies this balance, providing communities with crucial information regarding their benefits from projects on their lands, thus fulfilling the principles of OCAP® (particularly Access and contributing to Possession) without granting direct access to raw accounting data of reporting entities. The Pehta Framework ensures that Indigenous data is stewarded in Indigenous hands, reflecting Indigenous Data Sovereignty: the right of Indigenous Peoples to own, control, access, and possess data that derive from them. This approach emphasizes a 'right of awareness' for communities regarding reported impacts, facilitated by Indigenous-governed standards, rather than an unfettered 'right of access' to proprietary data.
From Reports to Statements: Indigenous-Led Assurance and Auditability
The practical implications of Indigenous data sovereignty for ESG are profound. When companies cede control and allow Indigenous-designed standards to guide their reporting, something transformative happens: trust enters the equation. To see why, let’s contrast the old way of reporting Indigenous impacts with the new.
For years, the norm was for companies to produce Indigenous Impact Reports internally – often collections of feel-good statistics and anecdotes assembled by community relations teams. These reports were usually glossy and well-intentioned, but they had no common standard, no independent verification, and often no raw data backing them up. As we noted previously, one company’s definition of “Indigenous employment” might differ wildly from another’s, and there was no authoritative methodology to reconcile them (pehta.org). Such reports were essentially unchecked corporate narratives. With no external oversight or audit, it was easy (even if unintentional) for companies to inflate claims or misclassify data, turning what should be factual disclosures into a form of corporate mythology (pehta.org).
An Indigenous Impact Statement, by contrast, is “built for trust.” It follows the Pehta Framework’s rigorous requirements, meaning the numbers reported must be tied to raw source data (e.g. payroll records, procurement databases) and they must adhere to standardized definitions set by the First Nations-governed body (pehta.org). These statements are designed to be traceable, defensible, and subject to audit (pehta.org). In fact, a useful analogy has emerged: an internal impact report is to an Indigenous Impact Statement what an unaudited brochure is to an audited financial statement (pehta.org). Both may contain similar information, but only one carries weight outside the organization. The Pehta Framework essentially brings financial-grade discipline to Indigenous ESG data. As the framework’s authors put it, “they are not stories; they are facts…expected to be accurate, complete, and verifiable.” (pehta.org) This auditability is not a dry technical perk; it is the lynchpin of credibility.
Indigenous-led assurance means that the verification of data is guided by those whom the data is about. Rather than a company assuring itself that it did right by a community, the community (through its institutions) assures the rest of us that the company’s claims hold water. Pehta operationalizes this by requiring that every metric in an Indigenous Impact Statement can be backed up with documentation and checked by an independent party (pehta.org). For example, if a company claims it spent $5 million on Indigenous suppliers, the framework would require an auditable trail of invoices or payments tagged to Indigenous businesses – and those businesses must meet an agreed definition of “Indigenous-owned” as set by the standard, not by the company’s whim. This level of detail closes loopholes. It prevents, say, counting a non-Indigenous subcontractor as “Indigenous procurement” just because they hired a few Indigenous workers. Everything is transparent and accountable.
Crucially, the assurance is Indigenous-led because the standard itself is governed by Indigenous communities (via the Pehta Foundation) and because the data flows back to Indigenous communities for validation. A flashy dashboard on a corporate website might impress some, but as we’ve argued, “a dashboard is not a disclosure. It cannot be audited… and critically, it offers no assurance to the communities it purports to benefit.” (pehta.org) Simply put, community trust cannot be earned with unverified visualizations or one-off case studies. It requires an institutional process that Indigenous communities trust. The Pehta Framework provides that process: it embeds community priorities (cultural relevance) in what is measured, and provides tools for communities to see and question the data themselves.
From an assurance standpoint, what’s revolutionary here is that the first line of assurance is Indigenous. The community has the data and the standard against which to judge it. When that community (through Pehta or its own governance processes) then says, “Yes, these figures are accurate and meet our standards,” it fills a long-standing trust gap. It’s no longer a company marking its own homework; it’s the company opening its books to the very people its ESG claims are about. This kind of Indigenous-led verification can complement traditional third-party assurance (like audits by accounting firms) by adding a culturally-informed layer of scrutiny. In fact, one could envision a future where an Indigenous Impact Statement comes with a formal attestation from an Indigenous authority or an accredited auditor working in tandem with the Indigenous standard. At that point, Indigenous social performance data would be as assured as financial statements – and far more trusted by communities.
New Standards, Old Gaps: CSDS, ISSB and the Credibility Challenge
The timing for frameworks like Pehta could not be more critical. Canada is on the cusp of implementing CSDS 1 and CSDS 2 – the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards aligned with the new ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) global baseline. CSDS 1 (General Requirements for sustainability-related financial information) and CSDS 2 (Climate-related disclosures) will bring mandatory ESG reporting to many Canadian companies, likely within the next couple of years (positiongreen.com). These standards mirror the IFRS S1 and S2, meaning companies will have to report on material sustainability risks and opportunities, governance, strategy, and metrics, much as they do financial results (positiongreen.com) (cooley.com). Indigenous relations and community impacts squarely fall under this mandate whenever they are material to the business. And in sectors like mining, oil & gas, utilities, infrastructure, Indigenous matters are undeniably material – affecting project approvals, operational continuity, reputation, and more.
However, a big credibility gap looms. The new standards will require companies to disclose information on their “social” performance, but they don’t prescribe how to measure or assure the quality of that information. The ISSB’s global baseline focuses on principles and broad topics; it doesn’t provide detailed metrics for, say, “Indigenous community benefits” (those are left to industry-specific guidance or regional adaptations). In practice, this means each company could choose different indicators to report Indigenous engagement, and there is a risk of the same inconsistency and unverifiability that plagued the old impact reports. As the Canadian Securities Administrators integrate these standards, one worry is that firms will treat Indigenous inclusion as a checkbox item—reporting a few high-level stats without robust backing. Regulators will be asking for assurance on these disclosures, but who will assure that an Indigenous engagement metric is legitimate? A conventional auditor can check if a number ties to an internal system, but not whether the number actually reflects community reality or has community approval. This is the trust and credibility gap we must address head-on.
It is instructive to look at what’s happening globally. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which goes beyond ISSB standards, will require companies to have their sustainability information audited by an independent third party (cooley.com). Starting as early as the 2024 reporting cycle, companies in Europe must obtain limited assurance on ESG data (with a likely move to reasonable assurance in the future). The goal is clear: put ESG reporting on par with financial reporting for accuracy and reliability (trellis.net). In North America, the U.S. SEC is also expected to require certain assured climate disclosures, and large investors are pushing for more verification of social metrics. A recent study confirms that ESG assurance is trending upward, with more firms voluntarily hiring third parties to verify sustainability metrics in order to satisfy stakeholder scrutiny (clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu). In a KPMG survey, 75% of businesses admitted they don’t yet have the systems in place to meet upcoming ESG assurance requirements (trellis.net).
Canada’s Bill C-59 has already raised the stakes domestically by outlawing exaggerated or unsubstantiated ESG claims: companies can face fines up to $10 million for “greenwashing” or social claims that cannot be proven (pehta.org). This legal backdrop essentially enforces a simple principle: if you say it, you need to be able to show it. And investors, too, are making it clear that vague promises are no longer enough. They want to see hard data. Indigenous inclusion has become a material ESG factor that influences investor decisions, but as of today many investors struggle to gauge which companies are actually doing well by Indigenous communities (pehta.org). In a 2021 roundtable on Indigenous rights, institutional investors reported “difficulty assessing the quality of company relationships with Indigenous communities precisely because the data was insufficient or inconsistent.” (pehta.org) When data isn’t comparable or reliable, investors cannot separate the companies that truly “walk the talk” from those that just “talk”. This not only undermines investor confidence; it ultimately does a disservice to reconciliation by letting some companies coast on rhetoric.
Enter Indigenous-led assurance as the credibility catalyst. By embedding the Pehta Framework into ESG disclosures, we address the very gaps that CSDS, ISSB, and even CSRD regulations have in the social realm. Think of it this way: CSDS/ISSB tell you what to report (material information) but not how to ensure it’s trustworthy. Pehta provides the how for the Indigenous part of the equation. It offers a ready-made, community-vetted set of metrics and processes that a company can plug into its sustainability reporting. If a Canadian mining company, for example, needs to report on its community and Indigenous relations under CSDS 1, it could elect to produce a Pehta-aligned Indigenous Impact Statement as part of its filings. That statement would transform a potentially mushy section of the report into a concrete, auditable disclosure. It would carry the imprimatur of having been prepared under a First Nations standard, which is a strong signal of integrity. For regulators, this significantly lowers the risk of false or misleading claims – any figures in a Pehta Statement are backed by evidence by design. For investors, it provides an apples-to-apples way to compare companies on Indigenous ESG performance, since those using Pehta will be held to a common benchmark. And for Indigenous communities, it provides confidence that what’s being reported publicly is grounded in their reality, not a corporate PR spin.
The beauty of aligning Indigenous ESG reporting with frameworks like Pehta is that it complements existing regulations without duplicating them. CSDS and ISSB set the overall requirement and scope (e.g., “disclose your impacts on communities if material”); Pehta provides the detailed content standard for one critical aspect of that requirement. In the EU context, one could imagine companies using Pehta to fulfill certain European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) indicators related to “impact on communities” or “affected Indigenous peoples,” thereby meeting CSRD obligations in a robust way. Notably, the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) has the mandate to adapt global standards to the national context (positiongreen.com). Recognizing Indigenous rights and data sovereignty is certainly a Canadian context that needs addressing. Encouraging or incorporating Indigenous-led standards like Pehta could be one way the CSSB enhances the global baseline for Canada. It would signal that how companies report on Indigenous matters is as important as what they report, tying credibility to community involvement.
Pehta in Practice: Rights-Holder Backing the Metrics That Matter
The momentum behind Pehta has unfolded in three clear waves.
First, on 30 January 2024 the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations issued a unanimous news-release endorsing the Pehta Framework as the standard it expects industry and governments to use when reporting project-level Indigenous impacts, calling the framework “a beacon for the future” and urging other Nations and regulators to adopt it. (Pehta Foundation)
Second, that regional stance was elevated to the national arena at the AFN’s July 2024 Annual General Assembly, where Chiefs-in-Assembly passed Resolution 56/2024 – “Support for the Pehta Foundation and First Nations Involvement in the Pehta Framework.” The resolution instructs the National Chief to press Canadian regulators to embed Pehta’s Indigenous metrics in forthcoming sustainability rules. (afn.bynder.com)
Third, on 6 March 2025 National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak carried out that mandate in a formal letter to the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board, inviting the CSSB to collaborate with the Pehta Foundation and integrate the framework into its Indigenous-focused disclosure work. Together, treaty-area Chiefs, AFN leadership and the National Chief have created an unambiguous rights-holder directive: Canadian sustainability standards that touch Indigenous matters should align with Pehta.
Why is that directive so compelling? Pehta converts community priorities into investor-grade data. For employment, it reports total Indigenous wages, job permanence and occupation level, using an anonymous matched-identity process that honours Free, Prior and Informed Consent. For procurement, it breaks out spending by ownership type, treaty area and certification status, preventing tokenism and showing whether dollars truly reach local Nations. Community-benefit reporting goes beyond cheque-writing, tying dollars and in-kind support to measurable outcomes—kilometres of road built, students trained, cultural sites restored—and requires those same rules to cascade down the supply chain. Each metric is housed in the Pehta Integrity platform so communities can verify results in real time, while investors see data that are standardised, auditable and comparable across sectors.(Pehta Foundation)
The result is a framework that satisfies the CSSB’s mandate for “decision-useful” disclosures and meets rights-holders’ demand for self-determination in standard-setting. By embedding Pehta, companies demonstrate regulatory readiness, investors gain credible Indigenous performance data, and First Nations retain control over how success is defined and measured—delivering the “I” in ESG with both authority and rigour.
Integrating Indigenous Assurance into Mainstream ESG Reporting
So how can this Indigenous-driven framework be integrated into the mandatory ESG reporting schemes that companies are now facing? The answer lies in seeing Indigenous Impact Statements (Pehta Statements) not as an extra burden or a parallel report, but as a component of ESG disclosure that plugs a critical gap. Here are a few practical pathways:
1. Incorporate Pehta Metrics into CSDS/ISSB Reporting: Companies preparing their sustainability disclosures under CSDS 1 (the general standard) can explicitly incorporate Pehta metrics in the sections that deal with social impacts or Indigenous relationships. For example, if under CSDS a company must discuss its impacts on communities and how it manages those, the company can reference its Pehta-aligned data: “In FY2025, under the Pehta Indigenous Community Benefit Standard, we delivered $X in verified community benefits to [Nation], achieved Y% Indigenous employment on Project Z (with $W total wages to Indigenous workers), and allocated Q% of procurement spend to Indigenous-owned businesses. These figures have been audited internally and are subject to Indigenous community verification through the Pehta Foundation.” By doing so, the company isn’t just throwing out numbers – it is signaling to regulators and investors that these numbers meet a high bar of reliability and relevance. It is essentially saying: “Don’t just take our word for it; these metrics are governed by an Indigenous-led standard and can be independently assured.” This builds confidence with the CSA (securities regulators) that the disclosure is less likely to be misleading (a compliance boon under Bill C-59), and it preempts the questions investors might ask about how those numbers were derived.
2. Use Indigenous Impact Statements as Assurance Artifacts: As assurance requirements ramp up, companies will need documentation and evidence for their ESG auditors. A Pehta Indigenous Impact Statement can serve as a ready-made assurance artifact. Because it requires linking to source data and following a defined process, an external auditor can more easily test its contents. In fact, one could engage an accounting firm or independent verifier to issue an assurance opinion specifically on the Indigenous Impact Statement. This focused audit could be done in collaboration with the Pehta Foundation or an Indigenous verification committee to ensure cultural appropriateness. The end result could be a limited assurance report (or even reasonable assurance in time) attached to the Indigenous data, which the company can then include in its overall ESG assurance package. This would directly meet the “limited assurance by 2025” expectation under EU rules for that portion of the report (trellis.net). Even where not yet required by law, it would send a strong signal of leadership to investors. It says: “We don’t just collect Indigenous ESG data – we have it independently assured to the same standards as our financials.” Given that “more and more firms are hiring third parties to verify ESG metrics” due to stakeholder pressure (clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu), having a pre-verified Indigenous impact section could differentiate companies in the market. Over time, if regulators see this becoming common, they might even reference Indigenous-led standards in guidance, further normalizing it.
3. Align Corporate-Community Agreements with Pehta Reporting: Many resource companies in Canada operate under Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) or other agreements with Indigenous communities. These often contain reporting commitments (e.g., annual reports to a joint committee on jobs, contracts, etc.). By aligning those agreed commitments with Pehta metrics, companies can streamline their reporting and avoid duplication. Essentially, the same data that goes into an Indigenous Impact Statement for the community can feed the public ESG disclosure. This alignment ensures consistency: what the community is told is exactly what investors and regulators are told, eliminating discrepancies. It also means companies are contractually bound to produce quality data (if the IBA adopts the Pehta standard as the required format), giving legal teeth to what might otherwise be seen as just voluntary ESG data. Such convergence of private agreements, community expectations, and public reporting is a win-win: it reduces burden on the company (one unified system to satisfy all parties) and increases the credibility of disclosures (since they are subject to community oversight via the agreement). We move closer to a world where an Indigenous Impact Statement is both a community report and an ESG report, verified in one process.
4. Advocate for Recognition in Policy: Indigenous leaders and progressive companies can jointly advocate that frameworks like Pehta be recognized or recommended in policy. For instance, Canadian authorities could include an appendix in CSDS guidance about best practices for Indigenous data, citing the Pehta Framework as an example of a standard that “respects Indigenous Data Sovereignty and enables high-quality disclosure.” Similarly, investors through organizations like the Responsible Investment Association could encourage portfolio companies to adopt Indigenous-led reporting for material social factors. If assurance standards (like those from CPA Canada or international audit rules) develop guidance on verifying Indigenous social metrics, they could reference working with Indigenous-governed data sources. The institutional credibility of Pehta will grow as more high-profile stakeholders reference it as part of the solution to ESG reporting challenges.
Ultimately, the integration is about fulfilling the promise of ESG reporting. ESG was always meant to surface risks and opportunities that financial statements miss. In the Canadian context, few risks are as material – and few opportunities as rich – as the relationship between industry and Indigenous Peoples. Yet, historically, ESG reporting on this front has been vague and prone to skepticism. By embedding Indigenous Data Sovereignty via frameworks like Pehta, we align the process of reporting with the principles of reconciliation and good governance. Companies get a roadmap for what to report and how to assure it, communities get a seat at the table and oversight of data, and investors get comparable, reliable metrics to inform decisions. As one of our foundational papers put it, “the path forward is one of credibility, transparency, and cultural relevance.” (pehta.org) Indigenous-led ESG standards embody all three: credibility (through auditability and assurance), transparency (through data sharing and clear standards), and cultural relevance (through Indigenous-defined metrics and governance).
Conclusion: A Roadmap to Trusted and Inclusive ESG
We stand at an inflection point. The convergence of new mandatory ESG disclosures and the awakening to Indigenous rights presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is clear: How do we ensure that in meeting our new reporting obligations, we do not repeat old patterns of exclusion or superficiality? The opportunity is that we can fundamentally improve ESG reporting by making it more inclusive, more rigorous, and more honest than ever before. Indigenous impact reporting is the test case – and with the Pehta Framework, we have a viable solution in hand.
This is thought leadership in action: we are reimagining ESG reporting not as a mere compliance exercise, but as a tool for ethical partnership and mutual accountability. It’s also a practical roadmap: we now have concrete standards, apps, and processes to implement these ideas on the ground. The call to action is for all stakeholders to lean in:
Companies: Embrace Indigenous Impact Statements as part of your core ESG reporting. Don’t wait for regulators to force your hand. By adopting Pehta’s standards now, you not only de-risk your disclosures (protecting yourself from greenwashing fines and investor skepticism) but also build stronger relationships with the communities that are essential to your business. As Pehta’s guidance notes, “Industry can only leverage the good work you create in the context of reconciliation when each of you report the same way… It is only our communities that can give credibility to your reports and Pehta is the path.” (pehta.com) In other words, consistency and community credibility go hand in hand. Align your internal systems to gather the needed data, train your teams on the standard, and consider third-party assurance for your Indigenous data. It’s an investment in trust.
Indigenous Communities and Leaders: Assert your data sovereignty. If you are not already involved, consider becoming a Pehta Foundation signatory or participant, so you can shape the standards that affect you. Insist that companies operating on your lands use Indigenous Impact Statements for reporting. Leverage tools like the Integrity App to monitor and hold them accountable. Your ownership of the data will ensure your voice is heard not just in boardrooms but also in the halls of regulatory bodies and financial institutions. By uniting around common metrics, First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities can send a powerful message: nothing about us without us, including the data. When you validate a company’s impact statement, let it be known publicly—your endorsement (or lack thereof) will carry tremendous weight. Conversely, call out those who refuse to back their claims with community-validated data.
Regulators and Standard Setters: Recognize and incorporate Indigenous-led frameworks in the evolving ESG landscape. Whether through formal guidance or informal encouragement, signal to issuers that using standards like the Pehta Framework is viewed as a best practice in meeting CSDS or similar requirements. Ensure that any future assurance rules explicitly acknowledge Indigenous forms of assurance (for example, allow an Indigenous governing body’s verification to be accepted as part of an assurance statement, in concert with audit professionals). This could be pioneered in Canada, setting an example globally. Also, continue to engage Indigenous experts when updating standards—don’t assume traditional financial or sustainability experts have all the answers on social metrics. The Indigenous perspective will improve the relevance of ESG regulations for all.
Investors and ESG Analysts: Demand detail and verification on Indigenous ESG performance just as you do for climate metrics or governance practices. When reviewing corporate disclosures, look for mention of Indigenous Impact Statements or Indigenous data audits. If they’re not there, ask companies why not. Use your influence to push for adoption of credible frameworks—many institutional investors have embraced the idea of the “SDG-aligned” or science-based targets for environment; it’s time to also champion Indigenous-aligned reporting for social impact. Consider allocating capital or engagement emphasis toward companies that can demonstrate verified Indigenous outcomes, as this can be a proxy for lower social risk (indeed, firms that genuinely share benefits with communities likely face fewer project delays and legal challenges). Support initiatives and research that highlight the link between Indigenous inclusion and long-term value, to reinforce that this isn’t just morally right, but financially smart.
In closing, the movement toward Indigenous Impact Statements and the Pehta Framework is about raising the standard of ESG credibility in a way that aligns with reconciliation. It’s about bridging worlds: Indigenous knowledge and governance systems on one side, and the corporate and investor ESG ecosystems on the other. Bridging these worlds isn’t easy, but it is necessary—and immensely rewarding. When done right, it leads to disclosures that all parties can trust, to partnerships built on clarity and respect, and to outcomes that benefit both communities and companies.
The stakes are high. As we implement Canada’s new sustainability disclosure standards and contribute to the ISSB global baseline, we must not lose sight of who ESG reporting is ultimately for. It’s for the planet, for people, and in Canada’s context, very much for Indigenous Communities and Indigenous Peoples who have often been marginalized in these discussions. By making Indigenous Data Sovereignty the foundation of ESG reporting, we ensure that our pursuit of transparency and accountability leaves no one behind. We also demonstrate a model to the world of how to integrate Indigenous rights into the very fabric of corporate accountability.
The path forward has been illuminated by Indigenous leaders and the Pehta initiative: a path of integrity, inclusivity, and innovation. Now it’s on all of us—governments, businesses, communities, and investors—to walk that path together. In doing so, we can transform ESG reporting from a perfunctory exercise into a powerful driver of trust, reconciliation, and shared prosperity. From promises to proof – that is the new standard.
