Something is shifting in Canadian business. Partnering with Indigenous communities is increasingly becoming seen not just as an important commitment to Reconciliation, but as fundamental to how business itself must evolve.
Yet many firms struggle to turn intention into action. The sticking point? Knowing how to respectfully engage with and incorporate worldviews, protocols, and timelines that don't fit neatly into standard business practice.
This is where Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk offers a path forward. Developed by Mi'kmaq Elder Albert Marshall, the approach brings together two perspectives or two “eyes” — one Indigenous, one Western — to produce richer and more ethical outcomes than either could alone.
That's the essential principle. In practice, this is the focus of new research by Sam Whiteye, Indigenous Leadership Director at the Carolinian Canada Coalition (CCC), and Diane-Laure Arjaliès, Ivey Associate Professor in Sustainability and Managerial Accounting and Control, along with Julie Bernard (University of Waterloo), and Bobby Banerjee (City St George’s University of London).
Together, they applied Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk to a first-of-its-kind initiative: a Conservation Impact Bond that funds biodiversity restoration by weaving Indigenous and Western governance into a single financial instrument.
In the Q&A that follows, Sam and Diane-Laure reflect on what they learned — and why business leaders serious about meaningful Indigenous partnerships, and better business outcomes, should pay attention.
Ivey Impact: For those unfamiliar with Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk, how would you describe its central idea, and how does it differ from the way businesses typically approach Indigenous partnerships?
Sam Whiteye (SW): I would say that Two-Eyed Seeing is unlike other approaches because it asks you to fully engage with a different worldview. For those in business, that means taking the time to see and understand things through an Indigenous eye. And the foundation for that work is ethical space, which I define as an intentional space for diverse collaboration rooted in respect, empathy, trust, and a desire to create mutual, reciprocal outcomes.
Western science is often grounded in the idea that the objective is separate from the natural world, whereas Indigenous values can be almost entirely opposite to that. So, if you try to combine these two very different worldviews, without integrating ethical space, you won’t understand what it really means to incorporate them — or how they can lead to a new way of doing things.
Diane-Laure Arjaliès (D-LA): From a Western business perspective, it also means learning to centre Indigenous voices more and moving beyond a short-term, transactional mindset. It is not, “I need to make a deal, so I am going to have one conversation.” It is a commitment to building meaningful relationships over time. If we are serious about reconciliation, that commitment matters.
Two-Eyed Seeing also asks us to see ourselves as stewards of the land. These partnerships are not just about what an organization can achieve, but how we can work together to care for the land and the communities connected to it.
Ivey Impact: Your experience suggests that bringing different ways of knowing together requires more than consultation. What does genuine co-creation look like in practice?
SW: For me, co-creation is a very intentional gathering of minds, which can only be held within an ethical space.
Genuine co-creation must start by having honest conversations about mutual goals. This means asking questions like: What are we trying to achieve together? Are our goals and values aligned? And, how do we want to work together?
And these conversations take time and are never one-off. That’s because trust is built through repeated conversations and a shared understanding of how decisions are made. But, once you establish that foundation of shared goals, aligned values, responsibility, and accountability, you create the conditions to move in the same direction and genuinely co-create.
D-LA: And, to build on that, co-creation needs to be grounded in an ongoing relationship, not just a single project. When you commit to Two-Eyed Seeing and engage with an Indigenous community or Nation, that commitment must extend beyond a single project. It should be reflected across the organization and in other lines of business. In that sense, it is also a commitment to Reconciliation within your organization.
But you also need to take time to prepare before making that commitment. You need to educate yourself, understand the history, learn about the Indigenous partners, engage in a decolonizing process, and be ready to engage responsibly. Mistakes will happen, but preparation and a genuine organizational commitment can help ensure those mistakes do not cause harm to Indigenous partners.
Ivey Impact: How might embracing Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk change the way organizations think about their own practices, decision-making, and relationships with Indigenous communities?
SW: If an organization is going to commit to Truth and Reconciliation, adopting Two-Eyed Seeing will help translate that commitment into practice.
But, as Diane-Laure said, it requires more than adopting a new approach to individual projects. It’s a strategic, system-wide shift to the way you shape policies, make decisions, experiment, and accept accountability. Especially when decisions affect the land. Organizations committed to Two-Eyed Seeing see the wellbeing of the land as their responsibility and make decisions about it alongside their Indigenous partners.
That systemic change can create better outcomes for Indigenous communities and organizations alike, while supporting a more holistic approach to business that moves beyond purely extractive or transactional models.
D-LA: It can also encourage organizations to think differently about the models underlying their practices and decisions.
Take capital and profits as an example. Two-Eyed Seeing creates an opportunity to question how your business generates profit. Is it based solely on extraction beyond the planetary boundaries? Could capital be deployed in more regenerative ways? The Conservation Impact Bond is just one example where different choices were made about how capital can support both environmental and social outcomes.
I am not suggesting that businesses cannot be profitable and create value. It is about asking what kind of value we create, for whom, and at what cost. The climate crisis is also a social crisis, and those who have contributed least to it are often among those experiencing its impacts first. As business leaders, we have a responsibility to consider what we can change, now and in the future.
Ivey Impact: Sam, based on your experience working with organizations and Indigenous communities, what are some of the common missteps organizations make when seeking to build meaningful partnerships and incorporate Indigenous perspectives into their work?
SW: A lot of organizations want to commit to Truth and Reconciliation – I’ve seen it. But one common mistake I see a lot is that organizations will take the steps to bring Indigenous leaders or perspectives into an organization, but they don’t make the internal changes needed for those staff or perspectives to have meaningful impact.
For example, an organization might hire an Indigenous person to help inform their strategy but expect them to work within existing policies and a colonial agenda, rather than changing the organization to support their role and expertise.
Another mistake is bringing an organization’s own agenda to Indigenous communities and expecting them to help solve the organization’s problems. The relationship has to be grounded in reciprocity, not extraction. If you’re a non-Indigenous organization committed to Truth and Reconciliation, your responsibility is to ask: How can we support Indigenous communities and their priorities?
That means listening to what communities say they need and then going back to your own organization and making the changes necessary to provide that support – whether that’s through fundraising or by providing resources.
Indigenous communities know what they need. Our responsibility is to listen, respond, and create the conditions to support their priorities – not just yours.
Ivey Impact: In your research, you stress that a Two-Eyed Seeing approach requires more time, relationship-building, and institutional flexibility. How can leaders reconcile that with the pressure to move quickly and deliver measurable results?
SW: Honestly, I believe if you are rushing a project when you engage with Indigenous partners, you are probably not doing it right. I’m often the first person to say we need to slow down or pause, because the best outcomes take time.
Funders and organizations may have timelines, but that doesn’t mean we need to rush conversations. The stronger approach is to do the necessary work upfront, so relationships, diverse perspectives, and consideration are genuinely part of the process.
D-LA: Academia also needs to recognize that this type of research takes time and may not produce papers immediately. For early-career researchers, that can be a significant challenge. But as AI advances, relationship-based research may become even more valuable because it relies on human connection — something you cannot just ask Claude about. The future will tell, but maybe slow, impactful, and meaningful research will become a key asset for business schools — one that AI could never harness.
Ivey Impact: If a business leader reading this wanted to put Two-Eyed Seeing into practice, where would they start?
SW: First, Two-Eyed Seeing is not a checkbox to tick. It is a deeper practice that takes time, commitment, and ongoing effort to implement and sustain.
For organizations that understand this and are looking to take this work further, I would start with the 10 recommendations in Advancing Conservation and Reconciliation through Outcomes-Based Finance, co-created by the Carolinian Canada Coalition, the Sustainable Finance Lab at the Ivey Business School, and EY. Use them to examine where your organization stands today, and identify the strengths, gaps, and opportunities that can help shape your next steps.
It’s a practical place to start, but it requires honest reflection. Ask: Where are we now, and what could we do differently? Those conversations may be uncomfortable, but they can help clarify a better, and more rewarding, path forward.
Samantha Whiteye is a Community Leader from Eelūnapéewi Lahkéewiit and Director and founder of the Indigenous Leadership Pillar at Carolinian Canada Coalition. Grounded in her Lunaapeew/Lenape culture and lived experience, she works to advance Truth and Reconciliation and shift approaches to conservation through Indigenous leadership and a Two-Eyed Seeing approach.
Diane-Laure Arjaliès is an Associate Professor, in Sustainability and Managerial Accounting and Control at the Ivey Business School. She founded and leads the Sustainable Finance Lab and studies how financial markets can support biodiversity, regenerative practices, and collaboration between Indigenous and Western knowledge systems.
