New tool to challenge greenwashing claims goes live as companies weigh strategy
TORONTO – It's been a year now since a new law took effect that requires companies to back up their environmental claims, but there's still a lot of unknowns about how the anti-greenwashing rules will play out.
What is clear so far is that they've already reduced what companies are choosing to say about their environmental record, even as the biggest source of worry for many — an option for the public to initiate claims — is only now kicking in.
The pullback started as soon as the law came into effect on June 20 last year, when the Pathways Alliance group of oilsands companies scrubbed all content from its website and social media feeds.
Since then there have been other high-profile moves blamed on the law, including RBC dropping its sustainable finance target and several climate metrics, and CPP Investments ditching its net-zero emission by 2050 target, but there have also been numerous other companies that have made quieter adjustments.
'I can say with 100 per cent certainty that many organizations across many industries in Canada are revisiting their disclosure,' said Conor Chell, national leader of ESG law at KPMG in Canada.
'There's a lot of disclosure that was pulled from the public domain.'
Companies have raised concerns about the broad, vague wording of the provision in Bill C-59 that requires them to backup environmental claims with 'internationally recognized methodology,' and the threat of penalties of up to three per cent of global revenues if they're found to be in violation of the law.
Many companies and groups have called for the additions to be scrapped, while the Alberta Enterprise Group and the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association have launched a constitutional challenge, alleging the law is a breach of freedom of expression protections.
The Competition Bureau has tried to address at least the uncertainty of the law by providing guidelines, with a finalized version out just over two weeks ago.
Some have said the guidelines are still too vague, while others like the Pathways Alliance say they provide no assurance at all, because the Competition Bureau isn't bound by them, while the Competition Tribunal doesn't have to adhere to them.
And it's the Competition Tribunal that many companies are especially worried about. A clause in the law that went into effect Friday allows the public to bypass the bureau, and directly ask the tribunal to hear a case.
'From the perspective of many of our clients, the real risk lies in that private right of action,' said Chell.
The clause has raised fears of a flood of cases against companies, tying them up in legal wrangling at the court-like tribunal, possibly for years, and the costs that come along with such disputes.
'We believe the amendments … should be removed to allow businesses to speak openly and truthfully about what they are doing to improve environmental performance and without fear of meritless litigation by private entities,' said Pathways president Kendall Dilling in a statement.
But environmental groups have played down the threat.
Ecojustice finance lawyer Tanya Jemec said the narrative that there is going to be a wave of filings is overblown, since bringing a case is time consuming and resource intensive, while they will have to meet a public-interest threshold before being allowed to proceed.
'I think there is a lot of fearmongering going on out there, and efforts, whether intentional or not, to undermine these anti-greenwashing provisions.'
Some, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, have questioned whether the new greenwashing laws were needed at all, given deceptive marketing practices were already covered by the Competition Act.
But Jemec said the existing process takes years, with no updates along the way from the bureau, while being able to take cases to the tribunal will increase transparency and relieve pressure on the bureau.
She said the reaction to the new laws, which also set elevated standards and penalties to the existing general protections, shows they were needed.
'The fact that companies are looking at what they are saying and changing course just may be an indication that the provisions are doing their work.'
Pushing companies to make sure they can back up their environmental claims improves competition, by making room for those legitimately trying to do better, said Wren Montgomery, associate professor at Western University's Ivey Business School.
'It's often these smaller, newer, really sustainable, pure-play sustainability companies that the innovation is coming from,' she said, noting she's seen in sectors ranging from fashion to wine.
'In my research, we see that greenwash is driving them out, so it's making it really hard for them to get rewarded for bringing that value to the market.'
Others, including Calgary-based clean-tech investor Avatar Innovations, have raised concerns that the higher reporting standards could hold back startups, both because of the compliance burden and the lack of established testing standards for emerging technology.
Montgomery said there are many established standards, and more being added, to cover environmental claims.
'My larger concern is not that a reporting standard is going to inhibit innovation. It's that greenwashing is going to inhibit innovation, and I think the latter is a much bigger concern for Canada.'
It's not just smaller companies affected.
Chell at KPMG said that for a while every company was clamouring to get out net-zero targets for the competitive advantage, but that advantage kept fading as more and more did it.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
He said if the law works as intended, only companies that can actually substantiate claims will be able to do so, especially for those 'big ostentatious claims like net zero, carbon neutrality.'
'So there is actually, I think, a competitive advantage for companies that can make those claims and back them up credibly.'
Whether the law is truly effective, or just forcing companies to say less out of caution, is still unclear, but it's certainly brought more focus to the problem, said Chell.
'If the intent was to draw attention to greenwashing as an issue, I would say that that objective has certainly been achieved.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 22, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada News.Net
3 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces - especially British Columbia - have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts- such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information - and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society - critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history - datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians - they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes - the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of "if," but "when." Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes - particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times - particularly now.
Canada Standard
3 hours ago
- Canada Standard
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces - especially British Columbia - have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts- such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information - and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Read more: How political party data collection may turn off voters Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society - critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history - datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. Read more: A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians - they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes - the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of "if," but "when." Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes - particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times - particularly now.
Toronto Sun
4 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
New tool to challenge greenwashing claims goes live as companies weigh strategy
TORONTO — It's been a year now since a new law took effect that requires companies to back up their environmental claims, but there's still a lot of unknowns about how the anti-greenwashing rules will play out. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account What is clear so far is that they've already reduced what companies are choosing to say about their environmental record, even as the biggest source of worry for many — an option for the public to initiate claims — is only now kicking in. The pullback started as soon as the law came into effect on June 20 last year, when the Pathways Alliance group of oilsands companies scrubbed all content from its website and social media feeds. Since then there have been other high-profile moves blamed on the law, including RBC dropping its sustainable finance target and several climate metrics, and CPP Investments ditching its net-zero emission by 2050 target, but there have also been numerous other companies that have made quieter adjustments. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I can say with 100% certainty that many organizations across many industries in Canada are revisiting their disclosure,' said Conor Chell, national leader of ESG law at KPMG in Canada. 'There's a lot of disclosure that was pulled from the public domain.' Companies have raised concerns about the broad, vague wording of the provision in Bill C-59 that requires them to backup environmental claims with 'internationally recognized methodology,' and the threat of penalties of up to 3% of global revenues if they're found to be in violation of the law. Many companies and groups have called for the additions to be scrapped, while the Alberta Enterprise Group and the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association have launched a constitutional challenge, alleging the law is a breach of freedom of expression protections. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The Competition Bureau has tried to address at least the uncertainty of the law by providing guidelines, with a finalized version out just over two weeks ago. Recommended video Some have said the guidelines are still too vague, while others like the Pathways Alliance say they provide no assurance at all, because the Competition Bureau isn't bound by them, while the Competition Tribunal doesn't have to adhere to them. And it's the Competition Tribunal that many companies are especially worried about. A clause in the law that went into effect Friday allows the public to bypass the bureau, and directly ask the tribunal to hear a case. 'From the perspective of many of our clients, the real risk lies in that private right of action,' said Chell. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The clause has raised fears of a flood of cases against companies, tying them up in legal wrangling at the court-like tribunal, possibly for years, and the costs that come along with such disputes. 'We believe the amendments … should be removed to allow businesses to speak openly and truthfully about what they are doing to improve environmental performance and without fear of meritless litigation by private entities,' said Pathways president Kendall Dilling in a statement. But environmental groups have played down the threat. Ecojustice finance lawyer Tanya Jemec said the narrative that there is going to be a wave of filings is overblown, since bringing a case is time consuming and resource intensive, while they will have to meet a public-interest threshold before being allowed to proceed. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I think there is a lot of fear-mongering going on out there, and efforts, whether intentional or not, to undermine these anti-greenwashing provisions.' Some, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, have questioned whether the new greenwashing laws were needed at all, given deceptive marketing practices were already covered by the Competition Act. But Jemec said the existing process takes years, with no updates along the way from the bureau, while being able to take cases to the tribunal will increase transparency and relieve pressure on the bureau. She said the reaction to the new laws, which also set elevated standards and penalties to the existing general protections, shows they were needed. 'The fact that companies are looking at what they are saying and changing course just may be an indication that the provisions are doing their work.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Pushing companies to make sure they can back up their environmental claims improves competition, by making room for those legitimately trying to do better, said Wren Montgomery, associate professor at Western University's Ivey Business School. 'It's often these smaller, newer, really sustainable, pure-play sustainability companies that the innovation is coming from,' she said, noting she's seen in sectors ranging from fashion to wine. 'In my research, we see that greenwash is driving them out, so it's making it really hard for them to get rewarded for bringing that value to the market.' Others, including Calgary-based clean-tech investor Avatar Innovations, have raised concerns that the higher reporting standards could hold back startups, both because of the compliance burden and the lack of established testing standards for emerging technology. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Montgomery said there are many established standards, and more being added, to cover environmental claims. 'My larger concern is not that a reporting standard is going to inhibit innovation. It's that greenwashing is going to inhibit innovation, and I think the latter is a much bigger concern for Canada.' It's not just smaller companies affected. Chell at KPMG said that for a while every company was clamouring to get out net-zero targets for the competitive advantage, but that advantage kept fading as more and more did it. He said if the law works as intended, only companies that can actually substantiate claims will be able to do so, especially for those 'big ostentatious claims like net zero, carbon neutrality.' Sports Sunshine Girls Toronto & GTA World Editorial Cartoons
