Marilou’s word
As much as I am happy to see a real desire for social action at the heart of several companies, I am also wary since I have the impression that value systems are sometimes only exposed for marketing purposes.
When we are blinded by advertising campaigns or when major philanthropic actions are put forward, should we question their veracity? How ?
Like any small business, I sometimes feel discouraged because our efforts to improve in many areas take time and can seem insignificant in the public eye when compared to the giants.
A competitor of your company brags about sharing its profits with a charity. On Facebook, consumers then praise his generosity and invite people to encourage him. But is he telling the truth? Who should you complain to if you have doubts about the veracity of your altruism?
Good to know, organizations do have the power to intervene in this area when filing a complaint. These are the Competition Bureau, at the federal level, and the Consumer Protection Office, at the provincial level. The complainant can also contact Advertising Standards, a non-profit organization that administers the advertising industry’s self-regulatory system.
A recent SOM survey carried out on behalf of The Press shows that a quarter of Quebecers have been influenced by cause marketing over the past year, having purchased in part because of the philanthropic pitch.
A popular area of cause marketing is the environment. Many companies are promoting their virtuous behavior. For example, Canada Post boasts that its parcel deliveries are carbon neutral. Its website details its approach: purchases of carbon credits offset the tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHG) from its vehicle fleet. “Not all companies disclose information on the website like Canada Post. Most of the time, we have to take it for cash,” says Julien Beaulieu, lawyer lecturer at the University of Sherbrooke. He is co-author of a report from the Quebec Environmental Law Center (CQDE) on greenwashing.
“A recent study shows that people have less and less confidence in companies’ environmental representations,” he continues. In the case of carbon credits specifically, the problem is that they are private certifications. These are certification organizations which carry out the checks themselves. There are some very good ones and some not so good ones. »
The CQDE report is based on four key principles, including disclosure. Companies should be required to publicly disclose the evidence behind their climate claims like “net zero” and “carbon neutral.”
Even when this type of information is made available, the consumer remains ill-equipped to ensure the veracity of the organizations’ claims, agrees Me Beaulieu.
Where to complain?
The citizen’s main recourse is to complain to the appropriate authorities if he or she has serious reasons to believe that a company is making false or misleading statements. In matters of greenwashing, it is often environmentalist groups that act as plaintiffs, observes the lawyer.
For example, members of the Let’s Get Out the Gas! filed a “complaint for false or misleading representations made by Énergir” with the Consumer Protection Office (OPC) on 1er last June. They contest the veracity of the assertion according to which its customers, by paying more, can be supplied with 10%, 30% or 100% renewable natural gas (RNG).
“There are several provisions of the law [sur la protection du consommateur] which prohibit false or misleading representations, in particular in articles 219 et seq.,” underlines OPC spokesperson Charles Tanguay.
Theoretically, the OPC can criminally prosecute the offender. In practice, this is rare, because the OPC’s resources are starving. It employs only 10 investigators to handle approximately 25,000 complaints per year. At the federal level, you should contact the Competition Bureau.
Combating deceptive marketing practices, including false, misleading and unsubstantiated environmental claims, is a priority.
Written statement from the Competition Bureau
” There Competition law prohibits unfounded indications. A statement includes any message, image or verbal communication, including online and in-store advertisements, social media posts and promotional emails, among others. »
Upon receipt of a complaint, the Office reviews the information to decide whether to launch a formal investigation.
In January 2022, the Bureau reached an agreement with Keurig Canada including a penalty of $3 million, following a complaint regarding false or misleading environmental statements made to consumers about the recyclability of its K-Cup pods. Disposable.
Advertising standards
The organization that administers the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards investigates the truth and integrity of an advertising message upon receipt of a complaint, explains Yamina Bennacer, director of national standards.
A single complaint is enough to initiate a review. We begin our investigation and it is the advertiser, the company, which is responsible for providing reliable and conclusive evidence that demonstrates that the claims made in their advertising are true.
Yamina Bennacer, Director of National Standards, Advertising Standards
Mme Bennacer confirms receiving complaints about greenwashing, but none about misleading philanthropic claims, as he recalls.
The injured party always has the option of going to court. Thus, a request for authorization of class action was filed on September 30, 2022 by the LPC firm on behalf of all people in Canada who purchased from Dollarama, the SAQ, Rona, Super C, Uniprix or Tigre A giant bag containing the words “recyclable” even though the bags are essentially reusable.
1500
The Advertising Standards organization, which only has moral authority, receives up to 1,500 complaints annually, which result in the publication of 50 to 100 decisions. Only the recognition of an infraction of the Code of Advertising Standards results in the publication of a decision. The code applies to all advertisers across the country.
SOURCE: Advertising Standards
Survey
Methodological note: The study was carried out online on October 4 and 5, 2023 with a sample of 1,021 Quebec adults registered on the SOM panel of Internet users. The results were weighted to reflect the main sociodemographic characteristics of Quebec adults. The margin of error is +/-3.7%, 19 times out of 20.
Promises noted
The majority of Quebecers have already noticed that a product is being promoted with philanthropic promises. Consumers aged 25 to 34 (65%) and 35 to 44 (67%) seem significantly more attentive or are more targeted than those aged 65 and over (49%).
In trust
Six out of ten Quebecers trust companies that make these types of promises. This confidence seems to change depending on the level of family income. At less than $35,000, it totals 52%, compared to 67% among households earning more than $75,000.
From confidence to purchase
A quarter of Quebecers (26%) purchased in part thanks to the philanthropic pitch. The confidence consumers feel that the promise to donate a portion of profits to charity will come true appears to play a critical role in the decision. Indeed, the more confidence we have, the more the chances of purchasing increase.
Enough to change brands
Seeing the promises and believing them is great, but is it enough to convince yourself to abandon your habits and opt for an unknown brand because it promises to share your profits? Again, a (small) majority of Quebecers would be ready to do so.
Consumers don’t check
Trust is essentially blind: barely 4% of respondents say they have already verified that profits were actually shared, before or after their purchase. A majority (55%) admit they would not. Be careful, however: among those who say they could be tempted to change brands, twice as many have checked (9%) and 56% have promised to do so.
