Convince me… that employers see life in green

The business world isn’t necessarily known for its advocacy of clean air, flowering trees and the charms of the chorus frog.

This is why I was surprised when I learned that the Quebec Employers Council (CPQ) had signed a memorandum which represents a vibrant plea for the protection of biodiversity.

The document is the work of the G15+ collective, which brings together businesses and unions as well as environmental organizations. The CPQ subscribes to recommendations that may surprise you.

In particular, we urge the government to:

• Respect its commitment to protect 30% of the territory, including in urbanized areas of the province.
• Dedicate part of the Quebec Infrastructure Plan to the creation and restoration of natural environments.
• Take social and environmental criteria into account when awarding public contracts.
• Reduce the use of pesticides in agriculture.
• Create a sustainable development fund for cities.

What kind of weed did the Quebec business community smoke to suddenly see life in green?

I wanted to discuss it with Karl Blackburn, president and CEO of the Conseil du patronat du Québec. Joining the discussion was Béatrice Alain, general director of the Social Economy Project, an organization also a member of the G15+ which aims to develop collective entrepreneurship.

M^me Alain brought an essential point of view to the discussion. But since the CPQ’s position seemed more surprising to me, it was Mr. Blackburn in particular that I followed closely behind. I also wanted to assess the extent to which the business world’s commitments are sincere or simply worded to look good.

“It’s because it’s 2023,” Karl Blackburn replies to me to explain concerns about biodiversity. It’s part of the reality of organizations. And the values ​​of businesses correspond to the values ​​of Quebecers. »

Mr. Blackburn reminds me that, on the international scene, the famous ESG (for environmental, social and governance) criteria are increasingly considered when obtaining financing or inserting themselves into supply chains.

In this context, both Mr Blackburn and Mr^me Alain believes that Quebec companies can develop a competitive advantage. Access to clean energy and being subject to strict environmental rules could allow them to stand out from the competition.

This is particularly why economic groups within the G15+ are urging governments to include environmental criteria when they make purchases or launch calls for tenders.

Mr Blackburn describes sustainable development as a “balance between the environment, social and economic”.

OK. But on the ground, this balance sometimes leads to difficult trade-offs. Will the business community intervene publicly if companies contravene the principles set out in its brief?

I (considerably!) annoyed my two interlocutors with this. The future Northvolt battery factory, for example, will lead to the destruction of numerous wetlands in Montérégie. However, we have heard neither the G15+ nor the CPQ intervene on this subject.

Another example: we know that the practices of forestry companies contribute to the collapse of woodland caribou populations. Will the CPQ dare to send a message to its members in line with the commitments made in its brief?

This is without taking into account that we still see real estate developers destroying natural environments and contributing to urban sprawl.

Both Mr. Blackburn and Mr.^me Alain told me that he did not intend to jump directly into these particular debates.

“Ultimately, we are not the government’s watchdog,” adds Karl Blackburn.

What I understand from the words of my two interlocutors is that they are trying to influence standards and laws rather than monitoring their application.

In the case of Northvolt, for example, Mr. Blackburn reminds me that a company is supposed to compensate for the loss of wetlands it causes with a financial contribution which must be used to restore or recreate others elsewhere. The Press has, however, shown that, in reality, money often sits in coffers rather than being deployed on the ground^⁠1.

For caribou, Mr. Blackburn emphasizes that the G15+ memorandum proposes modernizing the forest regime to make the forest “sustainable and resilient”.

“Imagine if we gave ourselves a real vision of reforesting all the unproductive heaths in Quebec,” he said. This could be done over decades. If we gave ourselves a Marshall plan for that, we would regenerate the forest and increase the territories available either for biodiversity, for industry, or for local economies. That’s a promising vision. But obviously, this requires significant investments. »

“Of course there will still be debates on specific projects,” says Béatrice Alain. But if these debates are held in a context where the rules and criteria are well established, we will see the right decisions emerge. »

Verdict?

As you will have understood from my questions, I would have liked the G15+ to commit to defending biodiversity each time the principles set out in its document are compromised. It seems to me if we want shoes to walk the talk, we must anchor theory in practice and embody it on the ground.

However, I want to avoid being too cynical.

The G15+ collective is an organization that has made an immense contribution to the public debate since its creation in 2020. In today’s divided world, hearing organizations with interests as different as the FTQ, Équiterre and the Conseil du patronat talk about ‘one voice is extremely gratifying.

The G15+’s mission to measure Quebec’s progress with indicators other than simple GDP also seems to me to be full of common sense.

We must salute the collective’s commitment to biodiversity. The recommendations made in the brief are interesting, precise, detailed. For a government, they are difficult to ignore knowing that they come from such a consensus between different groups.

We must therefore hope that these recommendations really influence the actions of our decision-makers. Otherwise, we could ask ourselves whether it is relevant for the G15+ to intervene in a more surgical manner in public debates.