Errors to Avoid in Environmental Communications (in the Bill C-59 era)

As of June 20, 2025, the landscape of environmental communications has changed for good. With the implementation of Bill C-59, Canadian brands are now required to provide concrete proof to back up all their environmental claims. This marks the end of ambiguous slogans, empty promises, and unsubstantiated superlatives. The era of rigour, transparency, and accountability has arrived. To ensure compliance and maintain credibility, here are the most common pitfalls to avoid.

1. Using vague terms without a solid foundation

The terms “sustainable,” “eco-friendly” and “environmentally conscious” are frequently used without tangible evidence. With Bill C-59, all environmental claims must now be based on concrete data, such as a life-cycle analysis or recognized certification (B Corp, ISO, etc.). Without this, the claim is presumed to be misleading.

Don’t: make vague or unquantified claims.
Do: always document, source and quantify.

2. Making repeated promises without a well-defined approach

It’s not enough anymore to set a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030. You must show how you will achieve it using an internationally recognized methodology, such as the GHG Protocol or the SBTi. A lack of a rigorous plan could lead to sanctions.

Don’t: make unsubstantiated general commitments.
Do: publish clear, verifiable, science-based trajectories.

3. Assuming that “no one will check”

Bill C-59 flips the burden of proof: instead of the authorities or the public having to demonstrate that an ad is misleading, it’s now on the company to prove its accuracy from the moment it’s published. The consequences are severe: up to 3% of global revenue or $15 million in the event of a repeat offence.

Don’t: wait until a problem arises to justify communication.
Do: document all messages in advance and keep proof.

4. Stop communicating altogether (the green hushing trap)

Some companies fear making a mistake, so they stop talking about their environmental efforts. This strategic retreat, known as green hushing, is counter-productive. It withholds information from stakeholders, which can lead them to believe that no action is being taken. We certainly wouldn’t want to see a backward slide in sustainable development among SMEs.

Don’t: keep quiet out of caution.
Do: communicate better, transparently and with humility. Surround yourself with experts in environmental communication.

5. Underestimating the latest legal recourse

Competitors, NGOs and even the general public can now file complaints with the Competition Tribunal without having to demonstrate direct damage. This significantly increases the likelihood of lawsuits due to misleading communication, even if unintentional.

Don’t: rely on internal validation that is purely marketing or legal.
Do: integrate ESG specialists or audit tools, such as the Social Capital Index, to ensure the reliability of communications.

Conclusion

Bill C-59 doesn’t ban discussing the environment; it requires that facts come first. For brands, it’s an opportunity to strengthen their credibility and avoid greenwashing accusations by anchoring their narrative in concrete evidence. When in doubt, nothing builds trust more than rigour.