Progress Pending – Tackling Greenwashing in Canada

Greenwashing: What is it?

Greenwashing is defined by Delmas and Burbano as “the intersection of two firm behaviours: poor environmental performance and positive communication about environmental performance”.
The term greenwashing was first coined in an essay by ecologist Jay Westerveld in the late 80s. He noticed a sign posted next to a towel rack in the en suite of his hotel. Westerveld  remembered “It basically said that the oceans and reefs are an important resource, and that reusing the towels would reduce ecological damage. They finished by saying something like, ‘Help us to help our environment’.” In doing this, the hotel presented themselves as an organization that cares for the environment. Westerveld claimed, however, that this towel saving campaign was not only a relatively ineffective method of environmental preservation, it also was a misrepresentation of the hotel’s true motives and priorities when it came to preserving the local ecosystem. “I don’t think they really cared all that much about the coral reefs,” Westerveld stated, “They were in the middle of expanding at the time, and were building more bungalows.” Instead, Westerveld asserted, the hotel was just trying to appear environmentally friendly, while simultaneously saving some money on laundry. 

Westerveld’s term soon caught on, as more and more consumers began recognizing this so-called ‘greenwashing’ in similar style marketing campaigns from other companies. One example of this was Chevron’s People Do campaign, which had been on the market for about a year before Westerveld wrote his essay. The People Do campaign commercials showed Chevron employees ‘helping’ animals such as bears, sea turtles and butterflies, in turn representing Chevron to be a company that cares. These commercials ran while Chevron was simultaneously violating the clean air act, the clean water act and disrupting wildlife habitats through oil spills. 

Chevron may have been one of the first to take advantage of the marketing edge that comes with greenwashing, but they were by no means the last. Indeed, as concern around the environment, climate change and wildlife preservation has grown over the years, it seems that the volume of greenwashing has grown along with it. One notorious driver of this is, of course, the fashion industry. 

It is widely understood that the fashion industry, as it stands today, is not a shining example of environmental and social responsibility. In 2021, the World Economic Forum identified fashion as the third largest polluter in the world, and the Geneva Environmental Network has traced 2-8% of the world’s carbon emissions each year to the fashion industry. As more and more consumers become aware of fashion’s impact, they’ve begun demanding more sustainability measures. 

“Let’s Not and Say We Did”

As pressure mounts on companies to reduce emissions and prioritize environmental concerns, instead of publicly sharing the clear and/or concrete actions they are taking to reduce their environmental footprint, companies are instead depicting themselves as socially and environmentally responsible businesses that are “ready for the future” (Boohoo), where “style meets sustainability” (ASOS) and whose practices “contribute to restoring the environment” (lululemon).  These brand campaigns, shared by Good on You, are all being marketed while the majority of these companies continue to operate fossil fuel intensive systems which prioritize profit over planet. This is a misleading practice that leads consumers to believe that the products they buy are responsible choices.

Perception is everything in the fashion industry. Sustainable fashion appears to be no different.  Michelle Gabriel, director of Glasgow Caledonian New York College (now IE New York College)’s Masters of Science Sustainable Fashion program, explains, “[Fashion] is a market where the products we make bring zero utility, so every bit of value embedded in a product — that allows a brand to charge a certain price, that allows customers to feel that they want it or that it’s worth that price — is entirely derived from perception, almost exclusively“. 

It is this perception-based structure, without specific concrete standards, that has allowed companies to exploit consumers through greenwashing, and also allowed them to  get away with it freely. This “wild west”, as Kelly Drennan Founder of FTA refers to it in an interview with Global News, is slowly becoming more regulated.

Legislative Change in Canada

In Canada, a new sheriff is in town in the form of amendments to the Canada Competition Act through Bill C-59. Two provisions have been added:

236 (1) Subsection 74.‍01(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after that paragraph:

• (b.‍1) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on an adequate and proper test, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation;
• (b.‍2) makes a representation to the public with respect to the benefits of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation; 

In other words, if a person/company makes a claim about the environmental benefit of their product, or their business activities in general, it must align with internationally recognized standards of testing and verification. It has not been specified what these standards are. These are so-called “reverse onus” provisions, meaning the responsibility lies with the person/company making the claim to prove their representation is legitimate (think guilty until proven innocent, and not the other way around).. 

After the bill was passed in June and awaiting final approval by the Governor General before becoming an official act of Parliament, its impacts were already visible, starting with  the Canadian oil industry.  The Pathways Alliance, a group of Canada’s largest oil sands producers, were quick to remove all content on environmental goals and action from their websites and social media. They then published a press release which included this statement: 

“These amendments create significant uncertainty and risk for all Canadian companies regardless of sector, that communicate publicly about environmental performance, including actions to address climate change. As a result, we have been forced to remove information on environmental and climate performance, progress, and plans from our websites, social media platforms and other communications channels at this time. These actions are a direct consequence of this legislation and are not related to our commitments or belief in the accuracy of our environmental communications.”

From Greenwashing to Greenhushing

Pathways Alliance’s response, and indeed the response of multiple others in Canadian industry, raises another potential issue. In cracking down on greenwashing, the pendulum may swing too far the other way, resulting in companies being too afraid to share any of the environmental progress they are making. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as “greenhushing”, a term coined in the late 2000s by Treehugger. Some, like Helene Smits, Chief Sustainability Officer for Recover, are concerned that greenhushing will result in “less public-facing communication [which] limits knowledge-sharing to industry peers and consumers—which could result in missed opportunities for collaboration and engagement.” Others, however, like Tonje Drevland, Assistant Director, Supervisory Department, at the Norwegian Consumer Authority, argue, “What concerns us is the obligation not to greenwash, and if you’re not sure that you’re not greenwashing, you should greenhush”. So, while legislating against greenwashing is a process, and standards must be made clear and attainable for companies, either way, legislation so far has accomplished its aim – making companies think twice about the environmental claims they are making. 

It’s Complicated 

In many cases, companies are not necessarily consciously conniving to greenwash; their false sustainability claims may simply be a byproduct of the high level of ambiguity and complexity in fashion supply chains. Many don’t even know where all the different steps of their garments’ production take place, never mind the environmental footprint of those steps. Mapping a supply chain can be a long and costly process, and is unlikely to be one a company would embark upon unless forced. Again, here we see the lack of legislated standards to provide any impetus. 

This gap, however, is starting to be filled by a variety of legislation passed by governments around the world. In Europe, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products and Regulation (ESPR) is mandating that products, including garments, are attached to a digital product passport (DPP). 

DPP provides a history of where an individual product has been, from conception to consumer. This will force companies to gain a more intimate understanding of their supply chains and consumers will be better informed to comprehend whether a company is legitimately undertaking sustainability efforts. 

Moving Forward

Until greenwashing is regulated on a wider scale it will continue to impede the progress of sustainability in the fashion industry. In making it nearly impossible to differentiate between companies actually making environmental progress, and those just claiming they’re doing it, it is nearly impossible as a consumer, despite best intentions, to support more eco-friendly products. Legislation can create clarity by forcing companies to back their claims with concrete action and evidence. Amendments like those made to Canada’s Competition Act will be vital to making progress on this issue moving forward. 

__ 
If you’re interested in learning more about greenwashing and its effects, specifically on Canadian consumers, stay tuned for FTA’s Canadian Consumer Perception of Sustainable Fashion & Greenwashing report coming out in September! Be the first to know when the report becomes available by signing up for our newsletter(s) – Sign up HERE. 

---