Transparency and trust: How Bill C-59 can strengthen your brand image

A new framework that resets the game

When a regulation is introduced, companies often instinctively calculate its cost in terms of hours, resources and the potential penalties for non-compliance. Bill C-59, which is now in force in Canada, was greeted with this initial reaction. Many saw its tightening of environmental communication rules as a constraint. However, this simplistic interpretation obscures its strategic importance. Bill C-59 does not merely prohibit vague promises and unfounded claims, it profoundly changes the rules of corporate communication.

By requiring that every environmental claim be based on concrete evidence, the law creates a level playing field where credibility becomes a competitive advantage.

In a market saturated with slogans, this shift is decisive. It forces organizations to rethink how they speak about themselves and to rebalance the relationship between promise and proof. Far from weakening brand messaging, this evolution opens up a new horizon: that of an identity built on rigour, transparency and consistency. The question, then, is not how to “endure” Bill C-59, but how to use it as a lever to strengthen trust and brand image.

Trust as a strategic resource

It bears repeating an oft-overlooked truth: trust is an economic asset. Invisible and difficult to quantify, it is nonetheless crucial. A brand that inspires trust attracts new customers more easily, retains existing ones for longer, reduces transaction costs, attracts talented individuals and enjoys a reputational premium with investors.

However, Bill C-59 directly impacts this capital. By requiring companies to substantiate their claims, it forces them to develop internal mechanisms for evidence and validation. Every piece of data published becomes a sign of seriousness, every limitation acknowledged a mark of honesty, every methodology cited a guarantee of transparency. This discipline powers a virtuous circle: rigour → credibility → trust → competitive edge.

We are already seeing the effects of this circle in forward-thinking organizations. Those who regularly publish indicators verified by third parties have seen their reputation soar among both their customers and partners. In an environment where widespread mistrust weighs heavily on corporate communications, this ability to substantiate claims is becoming a rare, and therefore, valuable resource.

The new communication contract 

The requirement of evidence is transforming the relationship between companies and their stakeholders in profound ways. Previously, it was enough to simply state an intention: “reduce our footprint,” “be sustainable,” “take action for the planet.” Today, such statements come off as hollow and insufficient.

Consumers, particularly Generations Y and Z, expect brands to explain their approaches in a precise and contextualized manner: What data? What scope? What method? Bill C-59 formalizes this expectation and, in doing so, redefines the implicit communication contract. One that is no longer based on inspiration, but on demonstration.

This agreement also promotes internal consistency. By requiring marketing, legal, CSR and operational departments to collaborate, the law creates organizational bridges. Communication is no longer a façade disconnected from the realities on the ground, but a faithful reflection of measured commitments. This stronger link between messaging and reality helps to forge a more robust brand image that is less vulnerable to accusations of greenwashing or opportunism.

When compliance turns into differentiation

One approach to compliance might simply be to “just do the minimum” in order to avoid penalties. However, this completely misses the potential of Bill C-59. The evidence required by law is not only a legal safeguard, it is also a lever for differentiation. For example:

• In RFPs, the ability to document environmental practices is becoming a non-negotiable criterion.
• In customer relations, transparency is no longer perceived as a weakness but a strength: acknowledging limitations while highlighting progress creates a more durable bond than an exemplary but unverifiable claim.
• For investors, this rigour facilitates access to green financing and lends credibility to ESG reports.

This differentiation could easily manifest itself in a variety of concrete ways, such as:

• A multinational agri-food company publishing its certified carbon indicators as open data receives greater media visibility than it would have with an ad campaign.

• • A bank applying Bill C-59’s logic to its ESG communications positions itself as a pioneer among institutional investors.

• A distributor offering a QR code to its certified data turns compliance into an immediate selling point.

In all these cases, the mechanism is the same: What was once an obligation becomes an opportunity for differentiation and, ultimately, a driver of identity.

Transparency, resilience and renewed creativity

This change also has an impact on an organization’s resilience and creativity. When it comes to reputation, transparency creates capital that can be mobilized in the event of a crisis. A company that is accustomed to communicating honestly benefits from greater leniency when an incident occurs. It can acknowledge a problem, explain its corrective measures and maintain its credibility, while others, perceived as closed, see their reputation collapse.

But the law also affects creativity. Some fear that it will stifle marketing by enshrining the superiority of data. Quite the contrary: It actually strengthens it. Because a narrative based on solid evidence has greater storytelling power than an abstract promise. It not only appeals, it convinces. Creativity is no longer the art of embellishment, but the ability to make the company’s real achievements engaging and inspiring.

This shift fosters more mature communication. Brands no longer have to choose between being appealing and credible. They can be both at the same time, since their messaging is rooted in reality and amplified by pertinent storytelling. This combination creates lasting value, based not on passing trends, but on a solid foundation: trust.

Conclusion: Turning rigour into identity

Bill C-59 is not simply a regulatory constraint. It represents a rare opportunity to rethink the relationship between communication and reality, between marketing and data, between promise and evidence. Companies that seize this opportunity will be able to transform their trust capital into a competitive edge, their compliance into differentiation and their rigour into identity.

In a saturated market, a unique slogan is no longer enough to create scarcity: true transparency is now required. And like any scarce resource, it creates value. Adopting Bill C-59 as a strategic lever means accepting to play by new rules: rules where brand image is no longer built through window dressing, but through consistency between what you say and what you do.

Businesses that make this choice will not be regarded as mere rule-followers, but as trailblazers of a new art of communication. An art where trust is no longer a nice-to-have, but the very heart of a brand.