logo
New tool to challenge greenwashing claims goes live as companies weigh strategy

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.
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What Executives Need To Know About The State Of Sustainability Reporting In July 2025
What Executives Need To Know About The State Of Sustainability Reporting In July 2025

Forbes

time7 hours ago

  • Forbes

What Executives Need To Know About The State Of Sustainability Reporting In July 2025

ESG environment social governance investment business concept. Sustainability has dominated the conversation in the corporate world over the past few years. Sustainability reporting; environmental, social, and governance reporting; and climate related-risk reporting were poised to be new standards alongside other financial reporting requirements. However, elections around the world shifted political leadership to the right, resulting in a"green backlash." The future of sustainability reporting is being reevaluated and debated. With so many moving pieces in jurisdictions around the world, it is difficult to know what to watch. Below are key developments that occurred leading up to June and to watch for in July. U.S. Department of Labor Under powers delegated to them under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Department of Labor regulates what factors fund managers can consider when investing retirement funds. In 2020, under Trump, the DOL issued a rule that said investments should be made based on 'pecuniary factors' only. In 2022, under Biden, the DOL issued a new rule saying that investments can consider ESG as a tiebreaker. The 2022 rule allows for the consideration of ESG factors, if, and only if, they are going to make the investment more profitable. The Trump Administration is seeking to reverse the 2022 rule. However, any action created through rulemaking can only be reversed through the same rulemaking April 25, an attorney for the DOL gave notice to the Court of the department's intent to reverse the rule. On May 28, the DOL filed an update, stating the "Department has determined that it will engage in a new rulemaking on the subject of the challenged rule. This rulemaking will appear on the Department's Spring Regulatory Agenda, and the Department intends to move through the rulemaking process as expeditiously as possible.' The posting of regulatory agenda is the first step to the rulemaking process, providing official notice to the public that an agency intends on creating, editing, or rescinding a rule. The DOL will release the 2026 Spring Regulatory Agenda in July. Prepare for the new rule to be released in early 2026, with a comment period in the summer. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission In March 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule to require large publicly traded companies to disclose climate action, greenhouse gas emissions, and the financial impacts of severe weather events. The rule was immediately met with legal challenges and was delayed while the court heard the cases. The lawsuits came from both sides. In February, acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda began the process to permanently end the rule. At the time, he asked the court for a delay in the proceedings while the SEC takes action to rollback the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. In March, the SEC officially voted to end their legal defense of the rule. As with the DOL, the reversal of the Biden era rule must go through the rulemaking process. The SEC will also release their 2026 Spring Regulatory Agenda in July, expect the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule to be on the list. Prepare for the new rule to be released in early 2026, with a comment period in the summer. On June 12, the SEC gave notice the are withdrawing a number of proposed rules that were still in the process of being drafted. Most notably, the 2022 'Enhanced Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies About Environmental, Social, and Governance Investment Practices.' As those rules were never enacted, the withdrawal is effective immediately. State Level Sustainability Reporting With the collapse of sustainability reporting at the national level, focus shifted to state level requirements. Sustainability activists held hope that what could not be obtained at the national level, could be accomplished in Democrat led states. Unlike Congress that meets year round, state legislatures typically meet for 60 days at the beginning of the year. Those legislative sessions mostly concluded in June, with no new notable climate reporting or sustainability reporting requirements adopted. For now, California stands alone as the only state with a climate reporting requirement. In September 2023, California approved the Climate Accountability Package, a pair of bills aimed at creating sustainability reporting requirements. Senate Bill 253 required companies that do business in California and have an excess of $1 billion in revenue, defined as 'reporting entities', to submit an annual report for Scope 1 and Scope 2 starting in 2026, for FY 2025. Scope 3 reporting will begin in 2027, for FY 2026. The responsibility of drafting specific regulations and implementing the reporting standards was delegated to the California Air Resources Board. CARB was initially given until January 1, 2025 to draft the rules and processes. That was delayed until July 1. CARB will not meet that deadline. CARB is still in the informal pre-rulemaking stage and debating what standards will be used to determine what companies fall under the reporting requirements. They are working on the definitions of 'doing business in California', revenue, and corporate relationships between parent and subsidiary companies. For now, if your company meets the revenue requirements in SB 253 or SB 261 and has over $735,000 in annual sales in California or $73,500 in property in California, keep a close eye on this process. CARB wants to release the rule by the end of the year. A fast-track approach still takes about three months, so I expect CARB will shift to the formal stage by September. Now is the time for interested parties to weigh in. Once the formal process begins, the template will be set and changes are hard to argue. I question if the California standard will survive the 2026 legislative session. Governor Newsome questioned the viability of the initial proposal, but still signed it. With the SEC withdrawing reporting requirements, no other states following California's lead, and the European Union rolling back international standards, it is difficult to believe California will stand alone in imposing such a burdensome requirement. EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting The most vigorous debate on the future of sustainability reporting is unfolding in the European Union. The EU was the world leader in the establishment of sustainability reporting requirements. They are now rolling back those requirements. As part of the European Green Deal, a trilogy of directives were passed to force businesses to address climate change and report GHG missions. However, the cost of these proposals on businesses and the broader impact on the EU economy became a theme during the 2024 elections. The shift to the right in EU politics embolden opponents to the European Green Deal directives. As a result, the Commission proposed a package of new directives to 'reduce the burden' on businesses. The Omnibus Simplification Package was officially adopted by the Commission in February. The Commission proposal raised the thresholds for businesses to have to report under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The Council adopted their proposal on June 23. Now it is being debated in the Parliament. The current CSRD uses a two out of three criteria test to determine if a company must report: 250 employees, €50 million in net turnover, and €25 million in assets. The Commission proposes raising the employee threshold. Stating 'to be subject to the reporting requirements an undertakings must have an average of more than 1000 employees during the financial year and either a net turnover above €50 million or a balance sheet total above €25 million.' The Council's proposal uses the 1000 employee threshold, but raises the annual turnover to €450 million. The Parliament is debating a proposal to raise the employee threshold to 3000. The current CSDDD requires companies to execute due diligence in ensuring that companies along the value chain are in compliance with environmental and human rights requirements. The Commission did not propose changes to the scope, but the Council wants to raise the employee threshold to 5000 employees and an annual net turnover of €1.5 billion. The Parliament is debating a proposal to raise the employee threshold to 3000. Sustainability advocates are fighting to save the directives, but it is a losing battle. Changes are coming to both the CSRD and the CSDDD, the debate is over the scope of those changes. The Commission proposal effectively removes 80% of businesses in the EU from having to report. It also eliminates nearly all non-EU based businesses. Watch the Parliament. Members and the parties were required to submit amendments by June 27. Those will most likely be published the first week of July. The party leaders will meet on July 15 to discuss the proposals and begin official negotiations for the final bill. The Parliament is expected to adopt its final position on October 13. That will be debated in a trilogue negations between the Council, Commission, and Parliament in November and December. Final changes should be adopted in December or January. In February 2024, the EU adopted the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, legislation that specifically targeted green and climate related claims. The Directive banned generic environmental claims 'without recognised excellent environmental performance which is relevant to the claim.' In June 2024, the Council of the European Union announced its position on the Green Claims Directive. The Commission, Council, and Parliament were in the 'trilogue' negotiations on the final language. The directive appeared poised for passage, but momentum to rollback green initiatives caught the green directive. In mid-June, members of Parliament from the EPP sent a letter to the environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall threatening to pull all support of the directive. On June 20, the Commission announced they were planning to withdraw the proposal, a procedural step that would terminate negotiations. The political blowback was swift from moderate political parties, threatening the support of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. For a presidency in a multi-party system, where leadership is based on coalitions rather than majority, the loss of support could be devastating. However, by June 24, the Commission was reversing course. Keep an eye on this issue in July. Watch for the Commission to propose a reduced Green Claims Directive, most likely removing some SMEs from falling under the requirements. For now, negotiations on the anti-greenwashing legislation are stalled.

Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ) Reaches Agreement with Canada's Competition Bureau
Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ) Reaches Agreement with Canada's Competition Bureau

Yahoo

time16 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ) Reaches Agreement with Canada's Competition Bureau

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (NYSE:CNQ) is one of Goldman Sachs' top energy stock picks. On June 20, the company reached an agreement with Canada's Competition Bureau to settle competition concerns tied to its acquisition of Schlumberger's stake in a joint natural gas venture. A hand holding a crude oil sample from a well in Permian Basin. Regulators had raised concerns over the company's push to acquire 87.5% interest in a portfolio of 16 natural gas processing plans. There were concerns that the acquisition would strengthen the company's edge in the sector and throttle competition, especially around Schlumberger's stake in a joint natural gas venture. The Competition Bureau had argued that the acquisition would lead to significant market concentration and reduce customer choices. There were also fears that the consolidation could drive up prices for natural gas producers. In its agreement with the competition authority, Canadian Natural Resources has agreed to divest a 75% stake in the Seiu Lake facility to North 40 Resources Inc. Canadian Natural Resources Limited (NYSE:CNQ) is an independent producer of crude oil and natural gas. It operates across a diversified portfolio of assets, including conventional natural gas and light crude oil. While we acknowledge the potential of CNQ as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 10 Best AI Stocks to Buy According to Billionaire David Tepper and 10 Stocks Analysts Are Upgrading Today. Disclosure: None.

Can Small Social Impact Acts Help Build A Better World These Days?
Can Small Social Impact Acts Help Build A Better World These Days?

Forbes

time21 hours ago

  • Forbes

Can Small Social Impact Acts Help Build A Better World These Days?

Four years ago advances were being made on many of the political issues popular with people whose political views ranged from progressive to centrist such as DEI, ESG, CSR, climate change, the expansion of alternative energy and foreign aid. Even when those liberal agenda items were in vogue, however, there was a long-running debate between what I call ideological purists and incrementalists. To draw a clear contrast, purists argued that our individual political energies should focus on working for systemic changes (e.g. don't concentrate on food bank donations to fight hunger, but rather on changing the economic system so people can afford to feed themselves.) Incrementalists recognized the need for such big picture changes, but also advocated that it was worthwhile for people to take small steps in their personal lives (think recycling and driving electric vehicles.) Are recycling and other small acts to build a better world worthwhile? Over the last six months the Trump administration has diminished through budget cuts and policy changes if not entirely shut down many progressive initiatives at the governmental and nonprofit levels (e.g. eviscerating US AID and shuttering governmental DEI initiatives.) Beyond playing defense through the courts or supporting state and local initiatives in blue areas, people who've concentrated on systemic change have a lot fewer outlets for their energies. That has left many people confused about what to work on next when it comes to building a more just society. Recognizing this, I reached out to a number of social impact leaders for their views on the value of incrementalism when efforts to create systemic change can seem quixotic at the moment. Two provided particularly valuable guidance. Unsurprisingly, the first to respond was Billy Shore, the founder of Share Our Strength, who has guided people in many ways on the road to building a meaningful life since 2001 when he published 'The Cathedral Within: Transforming Your Life By Giving Something Back.' Billy Shore is the founder of Share Our Strength and author of "The Cathedral Within." 'Everyone has a strength to share in advancing a cause that matters to them,' wrote Shore. 'I've seen this in action for 40 years in the anti-hunger work of Share Our Strength, and many years before that in my work on Capitol Hill and in political campaigns. And while systemic change and scaling effective solutions depend on policy change, such policy change is informed by personal experience, bearing witness, and advocacy. 'Each of us can go into a community to personally bear witness to the challenges that exists, whether visiting and volunteering at a food pantry, school, or environmental site. Bearing witness is about seeing for oneself, and letting yourself feel and be moved by what you've seen. This is often the motivation to pick up the phone, send an email or text to elected officials and advocate for an issue we're passionate about. Each of us also has a vote, which signals our desires for the world we want to live in. Each of us has a platform, whether talking to friends and family or posting on social media, to change the narrative about an issue that means something to us. I can think of nothing more powerful and worthwhile than using your voice, loudly and consistently, to make an impact.' Kate Williams, CEO of 1% for the Planet, shared that her work with thousands of businesses, individuals and environmental nonprofits had convinced her that individual actions absolutely do matter. 'Systemic change is critical, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum: Individual actions are the spark that drives collective action,' Williams explained. Kate Williams is the CEO of 1% For The Planet 'For me, two actions stand out as particularly impactful. The first is daily, mindful connection with nature. This doesn't mean you have to summit a mountain. It can be simple acts, like observing a dandelion sneaking up through sidewalk cracks or savoring a breath of fresh air. These moments cultivate a deep-seated appreciation for our planet, which in turn fuels a commitment to its protection. 'The second step is to choose one high-impact habit that you can consistently follow. This might mean taking public transit instead of driving, reducing food waste or aligning your business with environmental giving. The key is consistency—finding one area of your life or work where you can genuinely do better and sticking with it. 'The power lies in consistency and incremental growth. These "small" individual choices—amplified across communities—create change at scale.' Next week I'll share suggestions of individual choices that other social entrepreneurs suggest we consider as part of our personal work to build a better world.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store