Story shared by Annie Korver

Governance, Right Relations and Reciprocal Responsibility

I recently took a leap and completed the Institute of Corporate Directors’ (ICD) Directors Education Program. The Program is one of Canada’s leading corporate governance courses for board directors and involves 12 days of learning delivered over four modules, across four months. It immerses learners in the challenges and realities of effective governance. The Program provided new perspectives and understandings around governance, and it’s been good to let them steep and settle in. I was surprised, but not really, to land on the insight that the heart of governance is something already so central to our work at Rise, and to my role as a Director at the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business and Reconciliation and Responsible Investment Institute: caretaking. To govern well essentially asks us to care — to take seriously what has been entrusted to us, and the consequences of the decisions we make. Foundational governance concepts like duty of care and fiduciary duty take on fuller meaning when we ask how land, relationships and future generations can be centred within these obligations.

I was nervous about the level of commitment the Program required, and about whether I had the credentials and prerequisites needed to succeed. It also came with a price tag that induced a palpable gulp. After many pep talks and two kind letters of recommendation from Tabatha Bull (Nipissing First Nation) and Ivy Lumia, I applied and was accepted. I am grateful to the family members, friends, colleagues and ancestors who remind me that I have what it takes, that I’ve worked hard to get here, and that I can keep choosing to ride the growth edge. Beneath it all, I knew why I wanted to complete the Program. 

Many of the organizations we work with at Rise are governed by boards whose members have learned governance through longstanding corporate frameworks, and I wanted to understand that worldview from within. Governance is evolving quickly — boards are expected to navigate increasingly complex issues, from cyber risk and materiality to climate, human rights, and AI — and this felt like a moment to deepen my understanding of what board directors are contending with – and for my area of interest, how ongoing and evolving governance topics must address Indigenous Rights and the opportunity to advance Truth, Reconciliation and Indigenous inclusion.

This is where I find myself thinking about how responsibility and accountability are closely connected, but not interchangeable. The distinction was originally shared with me by Patrick Twinn (Sawridge First Nation), who carries the wisdom passed to him by his late father, Chief Walter Twinn. As Indigenous Peoples, we take to heart the responsibility of being Indigenous. This responsibility is rooted in relational accountability. It is a sacred obligation that exists whether others are watching or not. We have the opportunity to practice reciprocity with these relationships, to land, to community, to future generations, rather than being bound by compliance, reporting or shareholders. When we consider accountability, on the other hand, it is associated with outward-facing duties: reporting, oversight, due diligence, etc. 

As board directors, though, we must be both responsible and accountable. To be responsible is to care; to be accountable is to demonstrate that care. As seasons come and go, this sense of responsibility grows and deepens for me, and I welcome it. I carry responsibilities to family and community, to land stewardship and cultural continuity. Responsible caretaking asks us to move beyond individualism and remain in good relationship with one another and with the land, animals, plants and water. That is deep work, and it requires intentionality: continually reflecting on whether I am upholding my values, living my responsibilities, being accountable, and grounding in right relations. And – participating in conversation with trusted family, friends, colleagues, Elders, and mentors about what they are witnessing, receiving their feedback, and adjusting behaviour as needed.  

Sarah Jacknife (Elizabeth Métis Settlement) recently shared her thoughts on the difference between governance and government, which helps frame this: government is “the who” that provides authority, while governance is “the how” that gives direction about how that authority is exercised. 

Building on this, I have come to think of good governance as a practice of reciprocal responsibility. The “how” is where Reconciliation becomes practice, as we intentionally ask how Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Being might surface around the board table. As discussed last week with Sxwpilemaát Siyám, Chief Leanne Joe (Squamish Nation), relationality and intentionality sit beside the core concepts of accountability and responsibility. Rather than treating values, relationships, seven generational thinking, or collective wealth as separate from governance, we connect them to familiar corporate concepts such as duty of care, fiduciary duty, strategy, finance and risk. 

Over the past four years, Rise has developed the 7Rs framework, based, with gratitude, on the foundational work of Indigenous Scholars Dr. Verna Kirkness (Fisher River Cree Nation) and Dr. Jo Anne Archibald (Soowahlie First Nation); and the authors of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the late Honourable Murray Sinclair (Peguis First Nation), Dr. Marie Wilson, and Dr. Chief Wilton Littlechild (Ermineskin Cree Nation). The 7 Rs — Respect, Responsibility, Reciprocity, Relevance, Reverence, Rights and Relationship — are central to this work, and guide how we learn, how we show up, and how we build meaningful, accountable connections with Indigenous communities.

Recently, on an All My Relations podcast episode, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (Alderville First Nation) talks about how our personal experiences scale up, that our teachings move outward, from our own lives into our communities, nations and the planet. Governance touches this too, personal responsibility scaling into collective responsibility. The responsibility, as I’ve come to understand it, is to imagine seven generations sitting around the table. 

With an increased understanding of the realities that boards face, I find I can bring ideas about Reconciliation and decolonizing governance forward with more empathy, not less. What are we centring, and why? What or who is missing from the conversation? What are boards ultimately trying to protect and uphold? Where does the well-being of our children, and of future generations, sit in the decisions being made today? Can we weigh not only financial performance and quarterly reporting, but also our relationships to land, community and kinship-centred obligations? These are not Indigenous-relations questions; these are fundamental questions of good governance. 

As I’ve reflected on these questions over the past few months, I’ve considered what we can draw from the 7 R’s, from the interwoven design of the Métis sash, from land kinship, seven generational thinking, matriarchal societies, potlatch, or clan systems; or from knowledge as living relationship. As I consider the governance dimensions discussed in the ICD Program and consider how Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Being can be integrated, I have developed the following table to capture the knowledge that continues to be shared with me and my evolving thoughts. This information is not intended to be definitive; rather, it represents a living relationship that will continue to evolve as I move forward.

Governance Dimension	Conventional Corporate Lens	Indigenous-informed Lens
Purpose	Create value for the corporation in compliance with law and consideration of relevant stakeholders.	Create sustainable value within an interconnected network of relationships, responsibilities and Rights.
Primary Accountability	Board -> corporation -> shareholders, with consideration of stakeholders.	Board -> corporation and its relationships with Rights holders, communities, land, future generations and shareholders.
View of the Corporation	A separate legal entity with defined rights, obligations and assets.	A legal entity embedded in territory and governmental relationships with cultural, social and environmental responsibilities.
Land	An asset, operating environment, source of economic opportunity.	A living relative to whom we are accountable.
Indigenous communities	Stakeholders.	Rights holders, governments and nation-to-nation relations.
Decision-making	Bureaucratic or consensus.	Consensus.
Time Horizon	Quarterly, annually. Connected to strategic planning cycle.	Long-term, intergenerational, seasonal, cyclical.
Value	Financial performance, enterprise value, risk-adjusted returns, reputation and stakeholder outcomes, ESG.	Relationality, intergenerational thinking and spirituality. Financial performance, enterprise value, social, cultural, environmental.
Risk	Financial, operational, regulatory, legal, reputational and strategic.	Rights, relational, territorial, intergenerational, financial, operational, regulatory, legal, reputational and strategic.
Consent	Legal requirements.	Title and Rights. Free, prior and informed consent. On-going, trustworthy.
Board Composition	Skills matrix, independence, diversity, financial and industry expertise.	Territorial location, competency with Indigenous governance and Nation-specific legal orders. Rights, treaty and cultural awareness, relational accountability, skills matrix, independence, diversity, financial and industry expertise.
Board Evaluation	Performance, dynamics, diversity, culture, process, finance, strategy, risk, legal, industry and regulatory matters.	7 R’s, performance, dynamics, diversity, culture, process, finance, strategy, risk, legal, industry and regulatory matters.
Executive Compensation	Financial and strategi KPIs, risk, culture and ESG.	7 R’s, evidence of impact, financial and strategi KPIs, risk, culture and ESG.
Economic Participation	GDP, employment, procurement, community investment, shareholder returns.	Relationship, sovereignty, self-determination, repair, economic Reconciliation.
Accountability	Annual reports, AGM, financial statements, shareholder meetings.	Relational accountability, impacts on Rights holders. Trauma-wise, genocide informed, inclusive behaviour and action. Reporting, financial statements, gatherings, meetings.
Success	Financial and organizational performance	Sustainable prosperity as informed by reciprocal relations and outcomes.

Within his book One Drum, Richard Wagamese (Whitedogaru First Nation) wrote about the power of small ripples creating larger change over time. That idea resonates with me, because these are the kinds of questions that create ripples around today’s board tables. We can work toward boardroom practices that are more culturally informed, inclusive and equitable. We can challenge colonial distortions of what matters (hint: it’s not just the bottom line) and recentre long-practiced Matriarchal governance models of care, educate ourselves in different ways about governance and wholistic ways of being. 

Perhaps the biggest lesson from the ICD Program is that good directors ask good questions. I haven’t arrived at the answers, but as I reflect with humility on my own path and focus forward with responsibility, accountability, relationality and intentionality, I am on my way.

PC: Métis Sash, Otipemisiwak Métis Government