What the devil26:15Are green washing laws more damage than good?
Some corporate leaders say that the new legislation against green-green washing has had the unwanted effect of deterring companies to take climatic measures. But environmental organizations and others say he is a policeman.
The changes of the bill C-59 to the Competition Law were destined to prevent companies from misrepresented the environmental benefits of their products or practices, known as “green washing.” The bill also gave the competition office more to penalize companies that cannot support their claims with detailed evidence.
But critics say that demanding that all these statements conform to the “internationally recognized methodology” leaves too much space for interpretation and makes companies vulnerable to legal actions.
Michael McCain, the executive president and former CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, calls him “Green Hushing.”
It is “the opposite of the stimulus for companies to do the right thing,” McCain told Laura Lynch, presenter of CBC Radio’s What the devil. The changes create so many “obstacles and consequences” to promote the environmental efforts of a company, which companies stop doing so.
Royal Bank has “withdrawn” his commitment to facilitate $ 500 billion in sustainable finances for this year, pointing out the changes in the Competition Law.
Similarly, the investment arm of the Canada Pension Plan dropped his promise Invest in line with the objective of Canada to reach zero net by 2050, due to “recent legal developments,” said CEO John Graham.
Tyson Dyck, a lawyer who consults on environmental and climatic matters for corporate clients, including many in the energy sector, says that customers throughout the country have been “very concerned” about the changes, which entered into force last June.
He says that the business community was waiting for clarity about how to make environmental or climate related statements.
Instead, they obtained “confusion,” he said. “And I think they had problems interpreting the new provisions.”
But environmental groups say that no one is forcing companies to talk about their climatic efforts, and that corporations should behave sustainably because it is right, not for the impulse to the public image.
Matt Hulse, an Ecojustice lawyer, a charity of Environmental Law based in Vancouver, says that many companies complaining about the changes were previously claimed that they were green washing.
“They made ambitious statements about climatic and environmental action and have been accused of not following those things,” said Hulse.
That suggests, for him, that “legislation is really working.”
‘Involuntary consequence’
But McCain says that companies have a legitimate concern that legislation is not effectively written.
“This is a case of very good intentions in underlying politics with a very severely negative involuntary consequence, which, by definition, does it bad policy.”
The problem, he said, requires that a company’s statements be backed by “internationally recognized methodologies.”
There are not enough internationally recognized organizations or standards, he said, or are not “scientifically credible, in our opinion.”
The Canadian competition office has launched a Lululemon investigation into deceptive marketing accusations and ‘ecological washing’ its products by deceiving consumers about their environmental practices.
What about the standards to measure emissions in agriculture? And for carbon compensation?
McCain says they do not recognize the use of compensation in a viable way for mane leafy food.
“We achieved carbon neutrality,” he said, but “today there is no body that we know that would certify that.”
He says that it is “obviously unreasonable” to expect a company to spend dozens of millions of dollars in environmental works “and cannot shout from the top of the top of the good things we are doing.”
Fair playing field
Emilia Belliveau, manager of the Energy Transition Program for the Environmental Defense Environmental Defense Group in Vancouver, says there were good reasons to maintain language in the flexible act, maintaining the law itself flexible as best practices change in various industries.
In addition, internationally recognized methodologies portfolio companies prevent them from doing their own analyzes “that they can skew the data,” he said.
“Create a fair field between companies so that we are measuring the same things, and we can ensure that the quality of the data, the evidence that is used as proof of these green statements, maintains rigor.”
Former deputy Charlie Angus worked in a series of green initiatives over the years, and voted in favor of the changes. He is up to them.
“You cannot sell a car and say that it is the safest on the road when you know that there are serious problems with it. You cannot sell cigarettes and say, as they used to do it, ‘this is the lighter brand of cigarettes’, when all the cigarettes make you sick to you,” he said.
The changes “make sure that when companies talk about net zero and reduce emissions, which were actually telling the truth and not lying.”
The competition office launched its final guide About anti-Greenwashing legislation on June 5, that both corporations and some environmental groups expected them to provide more details.
Hulse, in Ecojustice, said that “there was a margin of improvement”, but that in general, it is not so difficult for a corporation to establish a basis for its claims, look for other jurisdictions abroad and apply well -established principles of accounting and accounting and The scientific method.
They can also pay a $ 5,000 rate to find an opinion of the office about any claim that they intend to do: “a trivial amount” for a large corporation, he says.
