Greenwashing and Major Projects: A Practical Reset
Published:
30 avril 2026
Author(s):
If you’re a proponent of a major project in Canada, this update is for you. Recent amendments to Canada’s Competition Act change the ground rules (again) for the environmental attributes of major projects — rebalancing the rules of greenwashing. The changes aim to make compliance more workable – a welcome change for businesses. However, the new amendments are a reset, and not a removal, of greenwashing risk. Early, substantiated, consistent environmental claims remain a must-have for major projects.
This update:
breaks down the evolution of the greenwashing provisions from 2024 to present,
sets out the key takeaways from a major projects lens, and
offers practical steps proponents can take to stay onside, while giving their project a fair telling.
What is “greenwashing,” and how is it dealt with under the Competition Act?
Greenwashing is a subset of misrepresentation. It refers to claims that mislead the public about how environmentally friendly a product, project, or business truly is based on the evidence. The Canadian Competition Act prohibits businesses from making misleading “green” claims about emissions reductions, sustainability practices, net‑zero commitments, or environmental benefits.
How has the Competition Act Evolved in Recent Years?
In 2024, the federal government formally addressed greenwashing risk through amendments to the Competition Act. It required businesses to support environmental business activity claims with an “internationally recognized methodology,” and it gave private parties the ability to bring greenwashing claims directly to the Competition Bureau.
It didn’t take long for these reforms to create widespread uncertainty in the major project space. Proponents were suddenly reconsidering whether to communicate any environmental attributes at all, no matter how strongly supported they were.
This chilling effect (known as the 'greenhushing’) did not go unnoticed by government. In March 2026, the government amended the Act again – this time, to reset the burden of substantiation for proponents to meet and redraw the boundaries on who could bring complaints.
The 2026 amendments remove the requirement to use an “internationally recognized methodology,” preserving the more flexible standard of “adequate and proper substantiation. They also narrow private enforcement and returned primary responsibility to the Competition Bureau. Specifically, the 2026 amendments remove the ability of private parties to bring applications in respect of environmental claims about a business or its activities.
Why does this matter for major project proponents?
The push for major projects in Canada is in full swing, with the energy and natural resources sector at the forefront. Major projects often have significant environmental benefits to promote, and/or robust environmental mitigation measures to extol. From a wind farm proponent quantifying its project’s contribution to net-zero emissions targets, to a mining proponents’ description of its environmental stewardship program, such public statements fall squarely under the new Competition Act provisions.
However, there are qualities inherent to major projects that make them particularly vulnerable to greenwashing scrutiny.
1. Major projects have a communications-heavy footprint.
For major project proponents, these representations often form a core part of investor materials, and stakeholder engagement. These representations run the gambit in terms of forum, from investor and lender pitch documents to environmental assessments, to project websites, press releases for major milestones, and regulatory filings, to name a few. This makes major projects particularly vulnerable to greenwashing.
2. Major Project engagement is almost always front-end loaded
Major projects are just that – major. The engagement process will therefore start years before any shovels are in the ground. There is also a well-founded incentive for early and substantial engagement with stakeholders. All of this leads to the near certainty that proponents will be describing future, planned outcomes, as opposed to communicating measured, already-performed ones. This early engagement environment, which is vital and necessary to major project development, does nonetheless present a fertile ground for aspirational, overstated claims, which is where greenwashing risk lives.
3. Proponents need to convert complex project parameters into clear, concise messaging
Major projects depend on social licence and stakeholder buy‑in. They are also likely to involve highly technical, complex aspects that must be communicated clearly to the public in a readily understandable format. This inherent tension is another flash point for greenwashing risk, as what is easiest to understand, is often easiest to challenge.
4. Major projects have large, multidisciplinary teams
Large projects involve multiple contributors across departments, including:
regulatory and permitting teams;
technical and environmental specialists;
investor relations; and
marketing and communications.
Without tight coordination, this multi‑author environment can quickly lead to message drift, and inconsistencies among public statements.
Risks for major project proponents under the legislation
Costly Financial Penalties
A complaint to the Competition Bureau about an alleged misrepresentation relating to environmental attributes of a project can be costly. Claims that are not properly supported in accordance with the Competition Act’s requirements may lead to regulatory investigations financial penalties including the greater of up to $15 million or up to three times the benefit obtained from the conduct (or, where that cannot be determined, up to 3% of worldwide annual revenues), corrective advertising requirements, and reputational damage.
Procedural and Substantive Risk
The 2026 amendments certainly reined in the procedural risk and substantive risk of a business-activity-related greenwashing complaint (i.e. private individuals or organizations cannot bring claims directly anymore, and the threshold for substantiating claims has been lowered). For major project proponents, careful support for environmental claims nevertheless remains prudent to build into any risk review for a major project.
Practical Guidance for major project proponents
1. Be specific, not broad
Avoid vague verbiage like “sustainable,” “green,” and “eco-friendly.” These terms put the “wash” in greenwashing, and paint with much too broad a brush. Claims that go further than what can be reasonably supported by evidence can lead to a complaint to the Competition Bureau.
Specific, measurable statements are much more likely to stand the test under the Competition Act provisions. Before publishing a project website or sustainability report, seek a legal review of the language for greenwashing risk.
2. Draw a clear line between the evidence and the claim
Ensure the data used clearly and directly supports what is being said. Avoid aspirational or predictive outcomes; instead, provide actual, measurable quantitative data using an industry-standard methodology that has already been observed. Ensure that technical experts who understand the supporting data are comfortable with how it is presented in project publications (the technical side of the business should work closely with the marketing side to avoid disconnects/oversimplification/sound-biting). Ideally, schedule a recurring bring-forward to review and update publications as the data matures and evolves over the life of a project.
3. Think Clarification, not Oversimplification
Ensure that complex environmental issues have not been oversimplified for the purpose of marketing. There is a distinction between clarity and conciseness on the one hand, and oversimplification on the other. The focus should be on distilling key project attributes, as opposed to watering them down or ‘washing’ over them.
4. Keep messaging consistent
Align environmental claims across marketing materials, websites, investor disclosures, and public communications. For proponents on large infrastructure projects involving many contractors, strict communications rules in contracts and subcontracts with trades help avoid errant public posts about projects containing statements about project attributes/performance (however well-intentioned they may be). Maintain an internal log of where each claim appears (website, deck, investor pitch, fact sheet, regulatory filing) so updates can be rolled through quickly if inputs change.
5. Create internal team controls
Internally, environmental claims should be treated with the same rigour as performance reporting and should not be slotted in with routine marketing/promotion. Build this into your publication workflow (templates, checklists, sign‑offs), and schedule periodic spot‑checks during key project milestones (EA/IA filings, financing announcements, construction start, commissioning) to ensure claims remain accurate as the project evolves.
Conclusion
The recent 2026 amendments to the Competition Act mark an important shift toward a more practical and balanced greenwashing regime. However, environmental claims remain under scrutiny. Businesses now have greater flexibility and clarity in how those claims can be supported, but they still need to be supported.
It is still early days on the 2026 amendments. Time will tell whether they will strike the appropriate balance to enforce fair and credible substantiation, without prompting a continued ‘hush’ around the environmental attributes of major projects. Ultimately, the stories proponents can tell are the stories of how Canada is being built: now, and into the future. With proper safeguards, proponents can have confidence sharing their project stories - stories which deserve to be told.
Related Lawyers
Services Connexes
Related Industries
