Corporate duty to society and environment

Summary#

This bill changes the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to redefine what a corporation is for and what directors and officers must do. It adds a legal purpose that combines the corporation’s best interests with benefits to society and the environment and requires harm reduction. It also requires an annual public report on social and environmental impacts and adjusts rules for lawsuits brought on a corporation’s behalf. The Act would take effect 1 year after it receives Royal Assent (Coming into Force).

• Sets a new statutory purpose: pursue the corporation’s best interests while benefiting society and the environment, and minimizing harm (Clause 2).
• Makes directors and officers responsible for pursuing that purpose and caring for listed stakeholders and the environment (Clause 3).
• Requires an annual impact report to shareholders, the Director under the CBCA, and the public; regulations may set reporting standards and size-based rules (Part XIV.2, subsections (1)–(6)).
• Allows joint reporting for affiliated corporations (Part XIV.2(2)).
• Changes the test for court approval of derivative actions and eases standing for those acting for society or the environment in certain cases (Clause 7).
• Updates “good faith” defenses and indemnification to align with the new purpose (Clauses 5–6).

What it means for you#

• Businesses (CBCA corporations)

  • Must operate to benefit society and the environment in a way proportionate to size and operations, and minimize harm, while pursuing the corporation’s best interests (Clause 2).
  • May state the corporation’s purpose in its articles, but it must match the new statutory purpose (new s.6(1.1)).
  • Must prepare an annual report on social and environmental impacts and on harm-reduction measures. Provide it to shareholders (unless they opt out), file it with the Director, and publish it on the website (Part XIV.2(1), (5)–(6)).
  • May be required by regulation to choose a prescribed third‑party standard and assess impacts against it; requirements may vary by size (Part XIV.2(3)–(4)).
  • May file a joint report with affiliates (Part XIV.2(2)).
  • Effective 1 year after Royal Assent, giving time to set governance, data, and reporting systems (Coming into Force).

• Directors and officers

  • Must act honestly and in good faith to advance the corporation’s best interests and ensure operations benefit society and the environment and minimize harm (Clause 3; new s.122(1)(a)–(b)).
  • Must exercise due care “including towards” shareholders, employees, retirees and pensioners, creditors, consumers, governments, the environment, and the corporation’s long‑term interests (Clause 3; new s.122(1.1)(a)–(h)).
  • “Good faith” reliance on expert reports remains a defense but is tied to compliance with the updated duties (Clause 5; s.123(5)).
  • Indemnification depends on having acted honestly and in good faith to advance the corporation’s purpose (Clause 6; s.124(3)(a)).
  • May face more applications for leave to bring derivative actions related to the new duty to benefit society and the environment (Clause 7).

• Shareholders and investors

  • Will receive an annual impact report with meeting notices or proxy materials unless they opt out (Part XIV.2(5)).
  • Can access the report on the corporation’s website and via the Director (Part XIV.2(6)).
  • Court test for derivative actions shifts from “interests of the corporation” to “consistent with the purpose,” which may affect litigation strategies and board oversight (Clause 7(1)).

• Employees, retirees, consumers, creditors, and governments

  • Your interests are expressly mentioned in directors’ and officers’ duty of care (Clause 3; new s.122(1.1)(a)).
  • You may have better visibility into a corporation’s impacts through the new annual report (Part XIV.2(1), (6)).

• Civil society and environmental groups

  • If you seek leave to bring a derivative action about the duty to benefit society and the environment (new s.122(1)(b)), the court will presume you are a “proper person” if you act in pursuit of society’s or the environment’s interests (Clause 7(2)).

• Federal government (Corporations Canada/Director)

  • Must receive annual reports and make regulations prescribing reporting manner and, potentially, third‑party standards and size‑based rules (Part XIV.2(3)–(4), (6)).
  • No appropriations are specified in the bill text.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations or fees are created in the bill text (entire bill).
• Federal administration: Costs to draft regulations, receive filings, and host public reports are not estimated. Data unavailable.
• Corporate compliance: Costs to collect data, select and apply third‑party standards (if prescribed), prepare reports, and adjust governance are not estimated and will vary by size and sector. Data unavailable.
• Legal costs: Potential changes in litigation volume due to derivative action provisions are not quantified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Aligns corporate law with 21st‑century risks by making social and environmental benefits, and harm minimization, part of corporate purpose, not just optional considerations (Clause 2).
• Encourages long‑term decision‑making by naming the corporation’s long‑term interests in the duty of care alongside stakeholders and the environment (Clause 3; new s.122(1.1)(h)).
• Improves transparency and comparability through annual public reporting, with the option for prescribed third‑party standards and size‑based rules to create consistent, proportionate disclosures (Part XIV.2(1), (3)–(4), (6)).
• Increases accountability: shifting the derivative action test to “consistent with the purpose” and adding a presumption of standing for society/environment claims may make enforcement more accessible where boards ignore the new duties (Clause 7).
• Reduces burden on small firms by requiring benefits and disclosures “in a manner proportionate to [the corporation’s] size and the nature of its operations” (Clause 2; Part XIV.2(4)). Assumes regulations will calibrate requirements effectively.

Opponents' View#

• Creates legal uncertainty: terms like “benefits the wider society,” “minimizes harm,” and “proportionate to its size” are not defined in the bill, which could lead to inconsistent court interpretations and board risk aversion (Clause 2).
• Expands litigation risk and costs: broader standing and a revised court test for derivative actions may increase applications and defense costs, including potential pressure on directors’ and officers’ insurance (Clause 7). Scale of impact is unknown.
• Imposes compliance costs, especially on smaller corporations, to measure and report impacts and possibly adopt third‑party standards; these costs are not quantified (Part XIV.2(1), (3)–(4)).
• May create conflicting priorities for boards trying to balance profitability with broad social and environmental objectives, raising the risk of hindsight challenges to business judgments (Clause 3).
• Reporting could become a checkbox exercise if regulations are weak, or duplicative if other reporting regimes apply. Effectiveness depends on the quality and clarity of prescribed standards (Part XIV.2(3)–(4)). Assumption noted; no regulatory text yet.