Today’s ThursdayThoughts come from what I’ve been observing as we head into the 2026 proxy season.

As U.S. companies reframe DEI goals under broader terms like “talent development” and scale back detailed ESG disclosures amid regulatory shifts and political pressure, Canadian boards face a strategic choice: follow the retreat or differentiate through rigorous, authentic governance. At its core, this is a fiduciary question.

Here are a few considerations for boards:
Stakeholders and institutional investors are increasingly sophisticated at detecting the distance between stated commitments and actual performance.
Performative disclosure erodes trust. Authentic disclosure builds it.
Pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and institutional investors with multi-decade time horizons continue to prioritize ESG considerations across market cycles.

For companies considering a retreat, this may create challenges for capital access down the road. Canada’s regulatory environment is moving forward. With Bill S-211 supply chain transparency requirements, OSFI climate disclosure guidelines for financial institutions, and strengthened anti-greenwashing enforcement under the Competition Act, Canadian companies already operate within a framework that demands substantive disclosure.

Throughout my board career, I’ve seen that directors who make the greatest impact are the ones who ask the difficult questions when others go quiet. I believe this is a moment for boards to examine whether their disclosures reflect genuine governance practices or compliance theatre. I always say that one woman in the boardroom is a token, two is a presence, and three is a voice.

The same principle applies here: one company maintaining rigorous standards may be an outlier, but multiple Canadian companies choosing authentic disclosure over retreat creates a movement.