Who checks packaging that says it uses 43% recycled materials? A “green” shampoo? A “responsible” car? More “sustainable” clothing? And does this “climate-friendly” sausage or this “carbon-neutral” gas pipeline pass the test of truth?
You are probably skeptical of these claims, but it remains difficult to separate permissible marketing from greenwashing. Before giving up in the face of consumer fatalism, the Quebec Environmental Law Center (CQDE) invites us to better recognize potential cases of greenwashing and to report them to the authorities.
“Above all, people need to know that it is not complicated to file a complaint,” says Julien O. Beaulieu, lawyer and researcher at the CQDE, who will participate in a webinar on the issue on Wednesday. You can call or fill out a form on the Consumer Protection Office (OPC) or Competition Bureau website.
These two public bodies are responsible for enforcing the laws governing greenwashing. The laws in force, both federally and provincially, are quite clear: the basis is that false or misleading advertising cannot be made.
“But the law does not say precisely what is false or misleading,” explains the lawyer, and that is the difficulty. He gives the example of the generic terms “green”, “responsible” or “sustainable”. “Is it inevitably misleading? It could be, because everything has an environmental footprint. But we don’t know, because no decision has given an interpretation from the point of view of an environmental claim,” explains Me Beaulieu.
To report a case, simply name the company that makes the product and explain in layman’s terms – not legal terms – why you believe it is greenwashing. “No need to cite articles of law,” he specifies. We can add evidence, such as screenshots or photos, for example, to show the ecological claim of a product or service.
“It’s as simple as that: you’re at the grocery store, you see something weird, you take a photo and you fill out the form in a few minutes,” he illustrates.
Few complaints, few actions
There are also other prohibited advertising practices, such as ignoring an important fact or promoting a product based on falsely scientific data or analysis. “Someone who suggests that something is compostable, but that it has not been analyzed, could fall into this type of situation,” says the expert.
But how do you know? This is where it gets harder. If in doubt, why not file a complaint with one of the responsible authorities? argues the CQDE. The more cases examined in detail, the more supervision will be strengthened. Julien O. Beaulieu also indicates that more information should be available to consumers. California law provides a right to obtain all evidence supporting an environmental claim, “a much more advanced provision,” he notes.
His organization has also proposed several ways to improve the regulatory landscape in a report published in 2022. “Yes, it takes changes in the laws, but for that, we must also make sure to send a clearer message », he notes.
Several NGOs file complaints, but they remain too rare for the authorities to mobilize, admits the OPC. “Until now, at least at first glance, if we rely on complaints as a barometer of consumer concerns, the issue of greenwashing does not yet stand out,” writes to Le Devoir Charles Tanguay, head of media relations for the OPC.
In other words, the light is not yet red on their radar. This is because they have limited resources and they must focus on the complaints received, recognizes Me Beaulieu.
Does this mean that this question does not concern citizens (and you, dear readers)? A survey conducted by International Consumer Research and Testing concluded that 84.3% of Canadian consumers want stricter control of greenwashing. Most Canadians are also already skeptical of companies’ sustainability claims, a Deloitte survey concluded in 2022.
Some bigger cases have also been publicized. Keurig Canada, for example, reached an agreement with the Competition Bureau regarding what was written on its coffee capsules. Single-use K-Cup pods claimed to be recyclable, but outside of Quebec and British Columbia, municipal recycling programs did not accept them.
An investigation by the Bureau therefore concluded that the indications given on recyclability were “false or misleading”. The company then agreed to pay a fine of $3 million and make a donation of $800,000 to an organization that supports environmental causes, in addition to reimbursing the costs of the Competition Bureau’s investigation. Levers therefore exist and you can activate them, affirms Julien O. Beaulieu.