Applying Blue Finance in Canada

A consistent theme in blue finance guidance is that solutions need to reflect local conditions. The systems involved are complex, and the factors that influence them vary from one place to another. This is particularly true of ocean systems, where environmental conditions, economic activity, and community interests differ by region, and those differences influence how outcomes are achieved. Financial decisions sit within that same context. They influence which activities move forward and how they are structured, which is why how a jurisdiction reaches those decisions is as important as the principles it starts from.

Corporate governance is one place that difference shows up clearly. In the United States, the board's role is typically described in terms of accountability to shareholders: directors oversee management, set direction, and ensure that shareholder interests are protected. In Canada, the framing is different. Directors are responsible for the long-term interests of the corporation itself, which in practice brings a broader set of considerations into the room. Employees, communities, regulators, and environmental conditions are more directly part of how decisions are evaluated. The difference is not always visible in the final decision. It is more evident in how the decision is approached: the questions that are asked, the risks that are considered, and the time horizon over which outcomes are weighed all reflect a wider set of considerations.

From a common set of guiding principles, blue finance will develop differently across jurisdictions, and in Canada several factors influence how it is likely to unfold. The banking system is highly concentrated: the six largest banks account for the majority of corporate and institutional lending, so their approach to incorporating environmental and ocean-related factors will have an outsized influence on how blue finance develops in practice. Credit unions play a different role. They are more closely connected to small and medium-sized businesses and operate within cooperative governance models, and while this segment has not traditionally been the focus of structured blue finance transactions, it provides a setting where local conditions and stakeholder considerations are already part of decision-making.

Geography is a factor as well. Ocean-related economic activity is concentrated in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, regions with established networks of ocean-based businesses supported by organizations such as the Ocean Supercluster and COAST, which bring together industry, research, and capital around ocean-related activity. That creates a natural base where financing and ocean systems are already closely linked. In some regions, Indigenous governance and stewardship play a central role in how ocean-related activities are managed, and national institutions such as the Canada Infrastructure Bank, along with evolving insurance markets, influence how capital is structured and deployed.

Regulation is evolving in the same direction. Federal guidance, including OSFI's B-15 climate-related expectations, is beginning to influence how risk is assessed and managed within financial institutions, and provincial regulators are moving along a similar path, adapting those expectations within their own frameworks. Taken together, these factors form the environment in which financial decisions are made and in which blue finance will take hold.

These factors describe the setting; on their own, they do not determine outcomes. They influence how decisions are approached and what is considered along the way. Ocean systems involve multiple participants operating within the same space. Fisheries, shipping, coastal communities, regulators, and scientific institutions are interconnected, and decisions made by one group affect others, sometimes immediately and sometimes across longer periods. A governance approach that considers a wider set of interests allows those connections to be reflected in financial decision-making, so that environmental conditions, long-term system stability, and the interests of different stakeholders can be incorporated into how decisions are evaluated. None of this requires new tools. Existing frameworks for credit assessment, pricing, and portfolio construction can already incorporate these factors when they are considered directly.

The structures that support this way of thinking are already in place in Canada. Board oversight, regulatory expectations, and institutional practices allow a broader set of considerations to be part of financial decision-making. That does not determine outcomes, but it does influence how decisions are framed and what is treated as relevant, and in turn it affects how capital is directed and how activities are structured. As blue finance develops, it will reflect these conditions. The underlying principles are shared, but their application will depend on how decisions are made in practice. Financial institutions, policymakers, and businesses are already operating within a framework that can accommodate these considerations; the question is how those elements are brought together in the course of decision-making. There is no single model to follow, and what emerges will reflect the choices made within this context.