Collecting data is hard. Analyzing and gaining valid and relevant insights is even harder. The science of data is imperfect and always evolving, and the data itself often changes each time it is collected.
But sharing good data – current and verified data – is one of the key ways organizations across any sector can build trust. We need the facts (or at least, what we know to be true at any one moment in time) to help us explain the world, impacts, consequences and benefits.
It’s been a few weeks and there is still a national dialogue about the federal government’s Bill C-59, which makes key amendments to the Competition Act.
It has been, in effect, a dust-up about data.
This legislation, which received royal assent on June 20, would require companies and organizations to back up claims of environmental outcomes—either expected or achieved—with data and facts. Think of this as truth-in-advertising but applied beyond consumer goods to environmental and climate disclosure, including in Canada’s oil and gas sector.
The environmental advocacy community pushed for more data to compel the fossil fuel sector to prove its assertions around greenhouse gas reductions. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Pathways Alliance, which represents the oil sands industry, has expressed a deep discomfort about the legislation. They added bold disclaimers on their websites and social platforms to indicate that they may not have all the data to back up the assertions they make, or, in the case of Pathways Alliance, dramatically pulled their online presence completely.
Although they may be hard to implement, the amendments could bring long-term benefits, especially to the oil and gas sector and others where there is divisiveness or lack of public trust and support.
Why? In short, because data can help build trust.
We have rarely lived in more polarizing times. Extreme points of view as well as social media that only serves us ideas that we agree with means it’s harder and harder to have meaningful discussions about big issues such as climate action, what and where key infrastructure should be built and how to generate energy. It’s getting harder to have healthy dialogue, consult meaningfully and receive constructive feedback because we don’t have a shared understanding of the impacts or benefits. We just don’t have enough trusted data.
The legislation is not perfect. It came without the prior consultation that would have been helpful to improve it and gain buy-in and understanding. The penalties seem overly high—up to three per cent of worldwide revenues if allegations are proven—and the ability for anyone to make a complaint that triggers some form of investigation may invite nuisance complaints. We don’t want to weaponize the new law and its goal of getting good data. This might require a neutral assessor of claims to mitigate the risk that groups make false claims to stop projects they don’t agree with. If the value of legislation can easily be undermined by manipulation, then its purpose is defeated.
We need more clarity on how it will work. The regulations, when made public, must provide a clear description of the bar for success. What does the government expect the level of proof to be? The government then needs to stick to those rules, so industry knows how to operate within them.
Even if industry and projects do produce the data, the process should meet internationally recognized standards. The government should provide clarity on what standards are acceptable, as well as any requirements for third-party verification so that the data and analysis meet those standards.
Requiring that companies measure and report on their sustainability performance according to generally recognized standards is reasonable given the federal government’s own requirement to report on its emissions under the Greening Government Strategy, using the GHG Protocol as its methodological foundation.
We commend the federal government for leaning into—not away from—data and hope they get it right. A shared understanding and increased trust in how we are addressing one of the biggest risks of our days—climate change—will only help. If adding more data collection to the mix helps build trust in decisions by industry, that is a win for us all.
We also must accept that data collection and analysis have to be paid for somehow. The costs for projects, such as energy and infrastructure costs, will increase because high-quality data is costly. These costs will likely be passed onto consumers, but in the long run it will be worth the investment to build public trust. Best practice tells us major decisions, including investments in climate action, should already be based on high-quality and validated data and analysis. They may be dragged to it by legislators, but sectors that comply with the amended Competition Act will see secondary benefits long term by having better data.
A final caution: Once the data is available and shared, it doesn’t mean its usable to the general public. Not everyone has a Ph.D. in environmental science. The next step will be to ensure the data is understandable and that people have access to it in a direct and plain-language way.
Julian Whike is a partner at Deetken Insight, a strategic advisory firm headquartered in Vancouver. Tamara Little is the founder of Coast Communications and Public Affairs.
