Photo: Catherine Meade
Catherine Meade is the vice president, community, sustainability and social responsibility at Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation.
For our CL Talk podcast, Meade discussed cultivating an ESG commitment at OLG and measuring success. She will appear on a panel examining that topic at Canadian Lawyer’s ESG summit on October 30 in Toronto.
Listen to our full podcast episode here:
This episode can also be found on our CL Talk podcast homepage, which includes links to follow CL Talk on all the major podcast providers.
Below is a summary of the conversation, edited for length and clarity:
Tell me about your career path
I wouldn’t call it a traditional path – it’s more of a career labyrinth. It’s evolved through three phases. After grad school, I spent eight years in the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) space, working in various sectors, including the federal government and university sectors, and as the first equity officer at the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society. Then, I transitioned to law, practising both privately and in-house. Finally, I moved into corporate leadership, which I’ve been doing for about 14 years. While I’m not practising law now, my legal training has been incredibly valuable throughout my career. It’s portable and has shaped how I approach leadership and corporate strategy.
What is your current role at OLG, and how does your legal background play into it?
I oversee three main areas at OLG. First, community sponsorships and programs – if OLG is sponsoring an event like Winterlude in Ottawa, Pride in Toronto, the jazz festival, it falls under my team. Second, sustainability and social impact, which is why we're talking today. Third, social responsibility, which at OLG is our responsible gambling program. My legal background comes in handy for reviewing and negotiating agreements and working closely with our legal team, especially in the responsible gambling area. Although I’m not part of the legal team, I’m involved in ensuring our programs are legally sound and help us avoid litigation.
What prompted your transition from legal practice to corporate leadership?
When I was practising law, I wasn't fully utilizing all of my strengths. My analytical and interpersonal skills were being used, but my leadership skills were not. In the legal profession, whether you're an associate or a partner, leadership opportunities are limited. Even in-house, there are many counsels but usually just one VP of legal. So, I didn’t find many opportunities to apply my leadership skills.
To address this, I pursued an executive MBA, which allowed me to transition away from the pure practice of law. My first role outside of law was overseeing the Pan Am Games capital projects for the City of Toronto. This role involved multi-party negotiations, where I represented the city and worked with representatives from the federal government and Infrastructure Ontario. We managed approximately $350 million worth of capital projects, which required numerous agreements and sub-agreements. It was a great transition for me, as it combined legal expertise with leadership and project management. Additionally, my academic background in sport, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, made this role a perfect fit, as it aligned with my career experience.
Later, at OLG, I was involved in negotiations during the organization's modernization process, which others might describe as outsourcing. I also spent three years on OLG's compliance team, where legal work remained a significant focus. I eventually transitioned into responsible gambling, where I continue to apply my legal expertise alongside other responsibilities.
How does OLG integrate community and social responsibility into its core operations?
At the highest level, 100 percent of our profits go back to the province, which relies on our revenue to fund hospitals, support high-performance athletes, and contribute to community initiatives. Every dollar goes back into the communities. In addition to this, municipalities with casinos receive a portion of the casino revenue. Some use these funds for road repairs, while others invest in playgrounds, seniors' homes, and other local facilities. OLG's impact can be seen in many places throughout the province.
Beyond this, hundreds of millions of dollars go to municipalities, and on a smaller scale, we contribute around $2 million annually to community organizations for sponsorships. These contributions are a smaller part of our profits which range between $2.8 and $3 billion. However, they are still vital for events and initiatives that rely on amounts ranging from $15,000 to $70,000. While it's a small part of our overall contribution, it's crucial for those local communities.
What do you think organizations need to keep in mind when transitioning to an ESG framework?
I can’t speak for other organizations, but I can share our approach. We made a deliberate shift from focusing on corporate social responsibility (CSR) to adopting an ESG framework. While the distinction may not be clear to everyone, for us, it’s significant. The shift moves from simply sharing wealth because we’ve done well, to using the good we do to drive our success as an organization. It’s a change in mindset – from "we’ve done well, so we’re going to give back" to "let’s do good to drive our business."
Giving back was never optional for us, but now it’s about how we approach it and how we tell our story. For instance, many people don’t realize that 100 percent of our profits go back to communities in Ontario. I didn’t know that myself before joining OLG – I only associated the organization with lotteries. But once you talk to people, they start to connect the dots, like OLG's involvement in events such as the Toronto Jazz Festival, where we provide a free stage, making the event more accessible to the public.
Since all our profits go back to the province, any additional funds we set aside for sponsorships, like $2 million for community events, must be used in ways that make or help keep things free for Ontarians.
When it comes to implementing an ESG framework, we go through key steps: conducting a materiality study to identify what is critical to our identity, an ambition exercise to assess where we are and where we want to go and creating a roadmap to get there. While this could all be done in the background, we made sure to engage our board and the people critical to execution from the start. Having buy-in from both decision-makers and those responsible for execution has been essential. This process was a significant learning experience for me, and it emphasized the importance of collaboration across the organization.
There’s increasing scrutiny around corporate responsibility, especially regarding greenwashing. How does OLG navigate these risks?
It's crucial that we’re truly doing what we say we’re doing, especially as a public entity that generates a significant amount of revenue. We’re highly scrutinized, both through audits and by the public, because OLG is a household name. People are always watching, and we’ve had to maintain a high standard of accountability, particularly after some pricing issues about 10 or 12 years ago. Since then, ensuring that we "do what we say and say what we do" has become central to our operations. As public servants, we take this responsibility very seriously.
The new ESG legislation that came in this summer only reinforces the importance of integrity in these claims. Whether you’re a well-known company or not, you can't make false or inflated claims just to attract customers or, in our case, public trust. ESG can indeed drive business, but if you're not delivering on what you promise or exaggerating your impact, people will notice – and that can harm both reputation and trust.
It's critical that any assertions we make come from a place of integrity. This accountability benefits everyone. It pushes us to live up to our aspirations and ensures that all organizations, regardless of their size or visibility, are held to the same standard. Ultimately, it’s about empowering consumers (or the public, in our case) to make informed decisions based on accurate, honest information, rather than intentionally incorrect information.
For lawyers advising clients on ESG, especially with increasing scrutiny, what advice would you give?
One of the critical things to keep in mind right now, especially with the rise of greenwashing concerns, is ensuring the accuracy of any claims being made. My advice to clients is to have third parties validate their assertions. This could be an audit or at least a review by an independent party, which adds a layer of credibility. If something has been unintentionally overstated, it's much better to catch it early before it becomes a larger issue. And if something is missed despite that review, at least you can show that you took all the necessary steps to ensure accuracy.
This goes beyond someone posting a comment on social media – it's now a legal requirement. Organizations can be sued or found in breach of the law if their claims are inaccurate. From my understanding, there's a reverse onus here, meaning it's up to the company to prove that their statements are correct, rather than the burden being on others to prove that they’re false. This legal shift makes it even more critical to be thorough and transparent in the information companies are putting out there.
There’s a broader debate, especially in the US, about whether private companies should make commitments to advancing ESG. What’s your perspective on that?
Yes, it is disappointing, though not entirely shocking, especially considering the broader context, particularly in the southern US. There's been a significant regression in discussions around race, education, and equality, like with the restrictions in Florida on how slavery can be taught – forcing a narrative that emphasizes the supposed "benefits" slaves received, such as food and shelter, rather than addressing the brutal realities of their experience. When you have that kind of environment, it's not shocking that progress on issues like race, equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) would be rolled back.
Many companies that made public commitments to EDI after the murder of George Floyd have since dismantled those programs. We're also seeing similar moves in academia, where efforts to address systemic racism or even teach certain subjects are being restricted. Against that backdrop, it's no surprise that caring for the environment or the impact we have on others is being challenged as well.
What worries me is how these trends are increasingly seeping across borders. It’s no longer a case of "that’s happening in the US, but we’re safe here in Canada." We’re seeing similar rhetoric and pushback against progress starting to creep into our own society. That’s why it’s so important to stay vigilant and speak up when we see these regressive attitudes taking root.