When Mark Carney dropped his first federal budget just days ago, many observers were shocked to see a pullback on the popular Bill C-59, Canada’s new anti-greenwashing law. The rationale, we’re told, is that the law made corporations too nervous to report their activities, and so they stopped sharing important information – aka “greenhushing” – which in turn slows investment in green solutions. As someone who has been researching greenwashing for well over a decade, and whose research helped inform the bill, let me explain how we got here and why so-called greenhushing isn’t the problem they say it is.
As temperatures climbed and our forests and communities burned over the last year, several Canadian companies abandoned their sustainability commitments. These companies joined the global ranks of Amazon, Walmart, FedEx, Delta, PepsiCo and numerous banks and fossil fuel companies in weakening their climate promises.
While one might think fear of the U.S. regime had brought this on, the Royal Bank of Canada, Maple Leaf Foods, the Canada Pension Plan and many others instead pointed to a homegrown enemy: Canada’s relatively new anti-greenwashing law, Bill C-59. This outcry became particularly virulent when a new private right of action came into effect in June 2024, a year after the law itself, allowing private plaintiffs to sue for deceptive marketing before the Competition Tribunal.
Greenwashing is communication that misleads people into overly positive beliefs about an organization’s environmental activities. Basically, companies aren’t walking the talk. Canadian lawmakers saw this as impeding fair competition and harming Canadian consumers, so Bill C-59 required evidence to back up environmental claims. Simple.
Or not. Several large Canadian businesses have been arguing loudly against the bill since it was passed. Rather than simply offering evidence to back up their environmental claims, many stated that the law was too complex and risky and that they were instead doing sustainability in secret by “greenhushing.”
As one of the leading global scholars studying greenwashing and greenhushing, let me offer some clarity. In short, I don’t think that word means what they think it means. Greenhushing refers to companies taking genuine actions to reduce their environmental impacts but choosing to downplay or stay silent about their actions publicly. Firms that are truly greenhushing are walking but not talking.
You may see where I’m going here, but let me expand.
Greenhushing means a firm is walking the walk
A firm that is greenhushing is taking genuine action to decrease its environmental impact. Those doing so seriously are likely using at least one of the standards, measures and metrics devised by scientists and international bodies to aid firms in these reductions. This is well-established territory. We know how to measure most environmental impacts, and we know how to measure reductions in those impacts.
In a recently published paper, the first of its kind, colleagues and I interviewed more than 50 firms in the wine industry that truly are greenhushing. It turned out that even though they weren’t public about it, all but two were certified to at least one known standard (Organic, Biodynamic, LEED, Fair Trade, etc.). These certifications cost time and money. Yet firms told us they were certifying to learn from experts, have a plan and metrics to follow, compare themselves to competitors, and keep themselves honest. Greenhushing is not “choose your own adventure,” and it certainly does not mean you use either no metrics or your own more favourable metrics.
If any of us wants to buy a car with better gas mileage, for example, we are very unlikely to simply take the word of the salesperson. We want a number verified by someone credible who is not selling us the car, and we want that to be a number we can compare across cars and companies. Whether they put that number in the ad for the car is a different matter, but we still want some good solid evidence.
Greenhushing means a firm is not talking the talk
Talking very publicly about how you are not going to talk about maybe doing something secretly sustainable is still talking. Of course, many of the greenhushing firms I studied do tell select audiences what they are doing. But when I hear these vague yet very public claims of secret “greenhushed” sustainability, I am deeply suspicious. When we now hear how actively they were talking to politicians in backrooms about their supposed greenhushing? Well, let’s just say my greenwash-meter is on overdrive.
If we are concerned about honest and innovative green Canadian firms greenhushing, as we should be, the best way we can support them is by stopping greenwashing.
– Wren Montgomery, cofounder, Greenwash Action Lab.
If not greenhushing, what are these firms doing?
If firms are loudly telling us they are still doing green things, yet providing no evidence, this is not greenhushing. It is just our same old friend greenwashing in a different guise. Vague and unsupported environmental claims are greenwashing.
With research showing that upwards of 50% of green claims are greenwashing, many of the firms who were being silent had taken Bill C-59 seriously and had stopped making unverifiable claims. But, if they weren’t doing anything credible to begin with, they weren’t greenhushing. They had merely stopped greenwashing.
RELATED
RBC’s climate retreat sparks debate over anti-greenwashing law
Canada’s new greenwashing ban rattles fossil fuel industry
Opinion | Canada’s new anti-greenwashing rules are not as bad as oil and gas industry says
All that being said, some firms do legitimately greenhush, like the ones I research. But my research found something fascinating: the primary reason honest green businesses weren’t willing to talk about sustainability was not stringent legislation or fear of backlash. Instead, they thought there was too much greenwashing in the market and they would be lumped in with all the other greenwashers if they did more talking.
To summarize the research, if we are concerned about honest and innovative green Canadian firms greenhushing, as we should be, the best way we can support them is by stopping greenwashing. Luckily, that’s what Bill C-59 and the Competition Bureau had set out to do.
If we want to permit climate disinformation to continue to disrupt markets, inhibit sustainable innovation and drive out genuine green companies? Unfortunately, that’s what Carney’s budget has set out to do.
Wren Montgomery is an associate professor at Ivey Business School at Western University and cofounder of the Greenwash Action Lab.