When it comes to sustainability reporting in the resource sector, companies are focusing on transparent communication, multi-disciplinary collaboration, and embedment in corporate strategy. Listen to this podcast episode to learn more. Part of our Coffee Chats with CPABC podcast series.
Why companies are focused on transparent communication, multidisciplinary collaboration, and embedding sustainability in corporate strategy
In 2025, we saw the emergence of a new geopolitical climate that resulted in real disruption around—and some would say a noticeable pullback on—sustainability initiatives and commitments. On October 31, 2025, I spoke with two industry experts about this very topic for our Coffee Chats with CPABC podcast: Naomi Thomas, CPA, and Ivy Wan, CPA. Naomi is a partner at PWC specializing in sustainability and climate change and an expert on sustainability in the mining sector. Ivy is the senior manager of sustainability reporting and risk at Canfor and an expert on sustainability in the forestry sector. Here are some insights from our conversation.
Naomi, given the events impacting sustainability over the past year or so, what changes have you seen in mining?
Naomi: From the outside, it may seem like companies are pulling back on sustainability, but what we’re seeing is that companies aren’t pulling back so much as they’re refining how they communicate and report on their progress—particularly as potential greenwashing claims and Bill C-59 are driving the demand for more robust claims and supporting data.
In terms of refinement, there are four areas that stand out. The first involves conversion standards and regulations. Even without a current Canadian mandate for sustainability reporting, global mining operations are aligning their reporting to meet requirements in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, Brazil, and Mexico. They’re also aiming for consistency across listings and adopting a single reporting approach where possible.
Secondly, we’re seeing an increased emphasis on site-level accountability. It’s no longer enough to have corporate policies—buyers and exchanges want proof of responsibility at the facility level. This is driving the uptake of mining frameworks, which companies are using not just to comply with standards, but also to enhance sustainability performance.
Thirdly, sites are changing how they use data. For example, in terms of safety, it’s not about collecting more data but about using and analyzing this data to ensure the safety of their workforce. Companies are analyzing near misses, fatigue, and equipment failure to anticipate potential safety risks before they escalate.
Lastly, there are green premiums. Mining companies often ask us how much they should invest if they’re not seeing the premiums on the other side. And while green premiums are not widespread, responsible mining is increasingly a ticket to market access. The leaders in this area are those who understand their full value chain and tailor their approach to what buyers and investors really care about.
To sum up, I really see the focus shifting from broad sustainability promises to site-specific evidence and real operational results resulting in fewer surprises, tighter controls, and clearer value where it counts.
Ivy, what trends have you seen in the forestry sector?
Ivy: Our sector is facing a lot of uncertainty, so we’re continuing to focus on what we can control and on doing the right thing—we’re not just following the latest trend.
Also, similar to the mining sector, our customers are looking for more granular details at the facility or mill level. They want specific details about each product they’re getting, from forest to finished product.
Can you share a little bit about Canfor’s sustainability strategy?
Ivy: Absolutely. Sustainability is not new for us in the forestry sector, and it’s already very much ingrained in our work at Canfor. So a lot of what we’re doing now is building on the work that’s already been done and better communicating on our progress, to Naomi’s earlier point. For example, we pursue forest certifications to implement best practices and believe there is a role wood products can play in mitigating the effects of climate change; for example, when wood products are used in place of other building materials, it can help reduce global emissions.1
And with recent developments on double materiality, we’re focused on aligning sustainability with our business priorities from both a financial perspective and a stakeholder perspective. Applying such concepts enables us to be more focused on delivering on what really matters.
What impact has the sustainability strategy had on your organization?
Ivy: Our sustainability team has continued to evolve and share best practices. We’ve brought people together from different teams and across different regions. And now it’s more about embedment, like holding accountability for what we set out to do, refining what works and what doesn’t, and then really making sure the strategy is relevant to the specific location or team.
Naomi, what impact have sustainability strategies had on organizations in the mining sector?
Naomi: What Ivy described is very similar to what we’re seeing with our mining companies. Treating sustainability as an operating system and not just as a disclosure exercise is where you really unlock that true value. It’s about embedding practices that help promote positive outcomes for the company, as well as for society and the environment.
It’s also about preventing unforeseen incidents, especially in the mining industry. The major incidents we’ve seen over the past decade highlight why sustainability systems must go beyond compliance. Tailing dam failures in Brazil and Canada, as well as fatal underground accidents in China, Indonesia, and South Africa, have had devastating impacts on families, communities, and ecosystems. Obviously, these failures have also had a negative impact on the industry’s reputation and financial stability.
Environmental disasters come with significant costs. In Canada alone, penalties have exceeded $80 million over the last 10 years. These kinds of figures underscore the consequences of non-compliance and the importance of proactive risk management. While sustainability processes and strategy don’t eliminate risk entirely, they do help companies implement governance programs and controls that monitor and manage risk transparently. And by setting standards that go beyond permit requirements, they enable companies to anticipate and mitigate issues before they escalate, protecting both environmental integrity and community trust.
Additionally, securing a social licence to operate is absolutely essential in the resource industry, and it’s something that’s earned and maintained through ongoing trust and engagement with local communities and stakeholders.
Research continues to show that mining companies that actively engage with local communities and respond to their concerns experience fewer operational disruptions and conflicts.
How has the finalization of the IFRS2 S1 and S2 and the CSDS3 1 and CSDS 2 affected your approach to reporting?
Ivy: I think for anyone who has watched this space evolve, it feels like a very long time coming. And thankfully, although the alphabet soup of standards can feel very daunting, it has been built off of voluntary sustainability reporting standards like the SASB standards, the TCFD framework, and GRI standards.4 At the end of the day, this is the systems framework Naomi was talking about. Without it, sustainability is just so broad that it can feel overwhelming.
As more regulatory sustainability-related disclosures emerge globally, it will be important to create clarity for companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions. How do you do it in a way that’s pragmatic and still useful? And how do you balance it with all of the other regulatory reporting requirements or standards?
These are the kinds of questions I explore with our teams as we strive to tell the story of our progress.
Naomi, same question?
Naomi: The finalization of IFRS and CSDS has the potential to transform sustainability reporting into a consistent and robust reporting system for actionable and trusted information. It marks a pivotal shift from fragmented, voluntary disclosures to regulated standardized reporting that aligns with expectations from investors and regulators and other stakeholders.
It can also be a strategic tool for building long-term value and resilience. We’ve seen that these developments have allowed companies to shift from a reactive, compliance-driven approach to a more strategic and integrated reporting model, as Ivy mentioned. Companies have been able to embed sustainability metrics more deeply into enterprise risk management frameworks and use them to inform strategic decisions. The clarity and consistency of these standards have also made it easier to engage cross-functional teams and ensure that sustainability is not siloed.
Ivy, can you tell us a little bit about the impact of sustainability reporting on Canfor’s stakeholder relations?
Ivy: We work very closely with all our subject matter experts and different cross-functional teams, because sustainability reporting has many audiences. Beyond the regulatory investor community, there are your everyday stakeholders—such as local communities, customers, and employees or prospective employees—who want to better understand not just what the company does, but also what it stands for.
A lot of my work involves trying to share more information with our stakeholders about what we actually do. Bringing stakeholders into the field to see our operations instead of just giving them our sustainability reports has been a really good way to show sustainability in action. Along the way, we’ve been able to identify opportunities for better collaboration while also debunking any myths about our sector. For example, timber harvesting on Crown lands requires prompt reforestation with suitable species by forest professionals, and when stakeholders see our work on the ground, they get the real story.5
That said, we’ve found that sustainability reporting has a huge value as a jumping-off point for further discussion, because what starts as a reporting exercise often leads to really good conversations about long-term thinking, strategic thinking, and business resilience.
What about reporting challenges? What have you seen?
Naomi: One of the most persistent challenges is data quality and availability. The widespread functions within a company and the level of detail you need to pull from them can definitely be challenging, as sustainability data is often scattered across multiple systems and departments—not to mention some of the challenges posed by the consolidation of global operations or mills.
Governance and oversight present another layer of complexity—one that requires a rethinking of board roles, charters, and responsibilities. It also demands closer collaboration between sustainability and finance teams to ensure disclosures are both consistent and strategically aligned.
There’s also a challenge in balancing transparency with strategic messaging. As Ivy mentioned, companies must communicate their sustainability efforts in ways that resonate with a whole host of stakeholders. This calls for a nuanced approach to storytelling that’s rooted in robust data but also reflects the organization’s values. Overcoming these challenges requires a combination of cross-functional collaboration, early data validation, and a commitment to embedding sustainability into business strategy.
What role do you see sustainability and the associated reporting playing in Canada’s resource projects going forward?
Ivy: I think this is a very relevant topic for all of us. Ultimately, speaking as a person in this community, we just want to make sure the companies that are involved in these projects are responsible in sustainably managing the resources and that they have good processes and governance, as well as a way of measuring their impact.
Sustainability reporting will enable companies to be transparent about their operations and activities, and about how they’re ultimately working towards global targets through these activities. It will also help us increase understanding and awareness of very technical areas, which is particularly important given the inherently complex sustainability impacts of these types of major projects.
Naomi, for projects that involve resource extraction, what role do you see for sustainability in the associated reporting?
Naomi: Mining often gets framed as incompatible with sustainability, but the reality is that we can’t build wind farms, electric vehicles, or everyday items like cookware without using mined materials. So the question isn’t about whether we mine but about how we mine responsibly.
Resource extraction, like the vast majority of businesses, needs to be a profitable endeavour. For companies, that means embedding sustainability into strategy and not just from a compliance point of view. Water management and energy security are pressure points. Demand is going to continue to escalate. So we need to balance energy security and secure reliable power while also protecting margins.
Most operators do meet regulatory standards, so the real opportunity lies in going beyond compliance. As we’ve discussed, proactive sustainability initiatives and risk analyses can unlock operational efficiency, resilience, and long-term value, while also proving that mining and other resource extraction can be done responsibly.
Thank you both for sharing your insights.
Lori Mathison, FCPA, LLB, is the president and CEO of CPABC.
This article was originally published in the January/February 2026 issue of CPABC in Focus.
Footnotes
1 Natural Resources Canada: Greening our Built Environments with Wood.
2 IFRS: International Financial Reporting Standards.
3 CSDS: Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards.
4 SASB: Sustainability Accounting Standards Board; TCFD: Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures; GRI: Global Reporting Initiative.
5 Government of British Columbia: Factsheet: Reforestation in B.C.
