Trends and Tools to Advance Indigenous Peoples’ Rights through Shareholder Proposals
Corporate engagement outcomes need to be assessed not only by the commitments secured for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, but by whether those commitments are implemented, disclosed, and reflected in companies’ relationships with Indigenous rightsholders.
This was the resounding throughline of Trends and Tools to Advance Indigenous Peoples’ Rights through Shareholder Proposals (watch the full webinar above), presented by Tallgrass Institute, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), Reconciliation and Responsible Investment Institute (RRII), and West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) on September 29.
Speakers provided insights and shared practical tools to support investor engagements, including benchmarks for assessing company commitments, disclosures, engagement, and accountability, as well as how investors can develop proposals grounded in Indigenous priorities to move companies beyond symbolic commitments toward meaningful action. Resources that were shared examined the 2026 AGM season, Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs) in Canada, and more.
The 2026 AGM Season
AnnaMae Dziallo, Shareholder Advocacy Coordinator at Tallgrass Institute, presented findings from Tallgrass’ report Indigenous Peoples and the 2026 AGM Season. The report provides information on the four shareholder proposals related to Indigenous Peoples’ rights that went to votes this year in the United States and Canada, as well as a new section reviewing progress on company commitments related to withdrawal agreements in 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Dziallo emphasized that withdrawal agreements are themselves not the goal, and that investors should continue engaging with the company to ensure that commitments are implemented and that company behavior changes.
For example, in 2023 the British Columbia General Employees’ Union and UBCIC withdrew their proposal after BMO agreed to revise its human rights statement, strengthen free, prior and informed (FPIC) due diligence, and expand public education on Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Since then, BMO has established an Office of Reconciliation, issued a Reconciliation Action Plan and a report on Indigenous partnerships, and maintained Gold-level certificate status with the Partnership Accreditation in Indigenous Relations (PAID) from the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business. While these developments are relevant, further information is needed to determine if these actions lead to changes in company practice that align with the expectations set by the original filers of the shareholder proposal.
Reconciliation Action Plans in Canada
Katisha Paul, Women’s Representative for UBCIC, presented Baseline Expectations and Good Practices for the Development and Assessment of the Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs) of Companies in British Columbia, including the rightsholder engagement sessions held to define what respectful engagement requires from companies. Co-developed by UBCIC, RRII, and WCEL, the report was commissioned in 2024 by UBCIC in response to an increase in RAPs across Canadian companies to serve as a resource and tool both for companies developing RAPs in British Columbia and for investors and other actors assessing the RAPs.
Paul also noted that there is no oversight in Canada for RAPs, and investors can step in to provide accountability. “Very few of these RAPs include a real grievance or accountability mechanism that lets rightsholders raise concerns and see them acted upon… Investors [can] ask for one and track whether it’s used.”
This is increasingly relevant for investors as Indigenous Peoples’ rights and the state of a company’s relationships with Indigenous Peoples are increasingly material to a company’s operational viability and financial performance.
Joanna El-Mikati, staff lawyer at WCEL and external counsel for UBCIC, shared learnings from the companion paper to Living in a Material World: Turning Corporate Indigenous Relations Communications from Token to Tangible. Despite material risks, El-Mikati stated that “Many companies are still providing misleading, inaccurate, incomplete, or no information in their disclosures about the true impacts on Indigenous [Peoples’] rights and the risks those impacts create. Instead, information is either cherry-picked or the issue is often sidelined into voluntary reporting, where companies often focus on peripheral initiatives and ignore the real rights violations.”
Voluntary reports often create a falsely positive picture of the company while leaving the underlying harms and risks unaddressed. “It becomes a lose-lose situation. Investors and the public may be misled. Indigenous relations remain poor and the company fails to address the real risks that can threaten its own operations,” El-Mikati said. Investors can learn more and review specific recommendations in The Cost of Getting Indigenous Relations Wrong: How to Vet Corporate Disclosures & Voluntary Reporting to Protect Your Investments.
Molly Damiani, Program Officer at SHARE and RRII, noted that many Indigenous leaders have criticized RAPs for lacking transparency, genuine accountability, and alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and FPIC standards. “There are opportunities connected to oversight which can help ensure that RAPs are grounded in Indigenous [Peoples’] rights, title and interest, and reflective of the priorities of community and are thus non-performative with the caveat that the chosen model must be well-resourced, voluntary, and co-developed with Indigenous partners.”
Damiani also Both Damiani and Paul stressed that community engagement around RAPs shouldn’t be extractive, one-way transactions. Instead, companies must build in time to move slowly and at the speed of trust.
“Reciprocity and articulation of a company’s intention for long-term relationships are the foundation of real reconciliation,” said Paul. Additionally, companies must include FPIC as enumerated in the UNDRIP as a baseline commitment. Paul continued, “FPIC isn’t a ceiling companies should be praised for reaching. It’s the floor, and everything else gets built on top.”
Maintaining a High Watermark through Shareholder Advocacy
Although there are different regulatory regimes in the United States and Canada, neither country incentivizes companies to respect the full rights of Indigenous Peoples. Investors, therefore, play an important role in pressing companies for credible information on impacts to Indigenous Peoples and what the company is doing to resolve these issues.
While shareholder proposals help maintain a high watermark for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, investors should assess corporate engagement outcomes not only by the commitments, but by whether those commitments are implemented and reflected in companies’ relationships with Indigenous rightsholders.