https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ArchShopArchShopDespite good intentions, another major trend has also emerged in the market. The so-called greenwashing arrives as an opportunistic practice.
Sustainable architecture is part of a movement that has gained strength in recent years. We have increasingly seen market sectors concerned with the environment and incorporating more sustainable solutions into their products. For architecture, this is an important path to follow. Its environmental impact is undeniable and can contribute positively to the future of the planet.
However, despite good intentions, another major trend is also emerging in the market. Called greenwashing, it can be seen as an antagonist to sustainable processes. Opportunistically, it adopts a "green aesthetic" to remain relevant in the market. In this article, we aim to explain the origin of this phenomenon and how sustainable architecture is affected.
Greenwashing is a deceptive marketing practice in which a company or product presents itself as more sustainable than it really is. This practice aims to attract new buyers, especially those with environmental awareness. Greenwashing is widely criticized by experts because it misleads the public and distorts the real meaning of "sustainable".
The term is a combination of two English words. Whitewash, used to describe processes of omitting information, and green, which symbolizes the environment.
Although not a recent practice, the term has gained more prominence in recent years. In September 2022, for example, it was officially included in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The American publisher is the oldest and most prestigious in the dictionary business. This shows the recognition of the term and its relevance today.
According to Greenpeace, greenwashing is a tactic that creates the illusion of an environmentally friendly company or product. In reality, however, they are not concerned with reducing their own impact on nature. It would be the dissemination of an unreal image that seeks to convince new consumers to buy.
Through this invented image, companies favor their brands and generate a false sense of legitimacy. Sustainable discourses contribute to a positive financial effect. The "green label" becomes a viable way to stimulate brand growth. Without needing, in this case, to "think green".
The practice is found in many moments in history. In the 1960s, for example, we have the case of the energy company Westinghouse. After being confronted by the anti-nuclear movement, the company released a series of institutional advertisements. It claimed that its nuclear power plants were safe, clean, and provided more electricity.
Although they did show an advantage over coal-fired plants, the advertisements did not express as much safety. They came at a turbulent time when nuclear meltdowns were frequent. Furthermore, the ads also ignored the nuclear waste produced by the plants and its environmental impact on nature.
The Westinghouse case can be read as an example of greenwashing even before the term was invented. In it, we identify a company that tries to cover up or ignore its environmental consequences, while declaring itself clean. The invention of the term happens years later, through the American environmentalist Jay Westerveld.
In 1983, while briefly passing through a resort looking for towels, a request from the hotel itself caught his attention. They asked guests to reuse their towels "for the sake of the environment". It was a peculiar request in the environmentalist's eyes, as institutions like that rarely made an effort to be sustainable.
Westerveld later understood that the hotel's action was aimed at saving on washing costs, which would only help the company itself. That was an inappropriate application of environmental issues that sought to justify the company's action.
Three years later, in 1986, the environmentalist wrote the first mention of the term in his thesis. "It all comes out in the greenwash". At the request of a friend, Westerveld turned the phrase into a complete essay on the hotel industry.
A year later the essay was published in a major magazine. It wasn't long before the term hit the mainstream media. Today we see greenwashing as one of the main obstacles to the development of sustainable processes.
But what is gained by lying about sustainability? With the continuous growth of environmental concern, it has become ethically correct to care for the environment. For companies, greenwashing is a great opportunity to enrich their own image. There is no concern in being sustainable, but in seeming so.
We understand greenwashing as a pejorative practice that must be fought and unmasked. When used, greenwashing further threatens the state of the planet. It delays the real actions that could be happening for environmental improvement and preservation. Furthermore, it also jeopardizes the reputation of companies, which launch suspicious and harmful products on the market.
Seeking to identify the appearances of greenwashing in the market, in 2007 the Canadian consultancy TerraChoice developed a study on the subject. Called Sins of Greenwashing, the study resulted in a list of the main characteristics of the practice. Since its launch, greenwashing has become even more evident and the list increasingly current.
Below we list the 7 sins highlighted by the study.
The sin of the hidden trade-off presents itself in the claim that a product is sustainable based on superficial attributes. That is, the claim favors a "green" aspect of the product, but ignores other environmental issues.
A good example is paper. It can be sold as being from reforested wood, but that doesn't make it the most sustainable option. Other stages in its production process must be taken into account. The emission of greenhouse gases and the use of chlorine for its bleaching are two of them.
The sin of no proof is found in claims that are based on inaccessible or non-existent sources. In other words, when a sustainable claim is not backed by any available or achievable information. This distance prevents its confirmation.
A recurring case of this sin is in the percentages of PCR (post-consumer recycled) materials. This is a type of sustainable action that returns various materials to the production chain in the form of raw material. Companies, however, do not provide accessible proof of these percentages. This makes it difficult to guarantee the claim and may indicate a greenwashing practice.
The sin of vagueness comprises a claim so poor, vague, or broad that its real meaning is lost in the discourse. A great example is products that claim to be "all-natural". Being natural does not equal being ecological or sustainable. Arsenic, uranium, and mercury are natural chemical elements and yet are highly poisonous.
A claim based on the sin of vagueness uses vague language to attract the consumer's attention. And due to the breadth of the claims, it is impossible to recognize its real message.
The sin of worshipping false labels occurs when a company endorses an environmental certification that does not exist. It is the creation of false green seals that lead the consumer to believe that the product has passed an official sustainable analysis. By appropriating images and words, this sin seeks to build a favorable impression of the company and the product.
That is why it is important to be aware of the seals assumed by brands and to know the official certifications that exist in the world today.
The sin of irrelevance is identified when companies use unimportant information to sell their products and services. In this sin, the aim is to highlight positive and true aspects, but which make no difference when viewed in a general context.
An example is CFC (chlorofluorocarbon), a compound with great destructive potential in the ozone layer. By indicating that a product is "CFC-free", we understand it as something positive and sustainable. And it is. However, the claim becomes irrelevant since the compound is banned worldwide by the Montreal Protocol - established in 1989.
The sin of the lesser of two evils is characterized by sustainable versions of products that are, fundamentally, not sustainable. This sin highlights a product with positive qualities, but ignores the environmental impact caused by the entire category of that product.
To illustrate this better, let's take organic cigarettes as an example. Although they are an alternative and natural version of industrialized cigarettes, they are still cigarettes. The sin of the lesser of two evils tries to create consumer satisfaction with a category of products that, in reality, should be avoided altogether.
The sin of fibbing is perhaps the simplest on the list. It occurs when the sustainable claims of companies are purely false. Products can gain official certifications and registrations or even claim a friendly relationship with the environment. There are no limits when it comes to lying.
In early 2022, CASACOR published a list predicting the next trends in architecture. Among ceramics and colored woods, the show's team highlighted "green actions" as a factor with great potential. This is an example of how sustainable solutions are increasingly present in architecture - so present that they have become trends.
Being a trend is not, logically, the big problem with this issue. Sustainable development can even benefit from this dynamic, spreading its message even further. However, we have seen throughout the article that brands rarely have good intentions. In the race to remain relevant in the market, the sustainable message is often forgotten.
Companies end up riding the trend of "green actions" to favor their image with the general public. Ignoring the pillars of sustainability, they spread superficial and misleading ideas to sell their products. This is a practice found in numerous industries - architecture being one of them.
What is greenwashing in architecture? Greenwashing in architecture is a practice that presents projects as more sustainable than they really are. This may include false or exaggerated claims about energy efficiency, use of green materials, integration of renewable energy sources, among other aspects.
The processes of greenwashing in architecture are camouflaged in characteristics that, to the naked eye, we would believe to be positive for the environment. To better exemplify, we list 4 of them below.
One of the examples of greenwashing in sustainable architecture is the claim that a building is "carbon-free". Although it sounds positive, there is no defined standard for this type of construction. This means that companies can use the expression in a misleading way.
Furthermore, most buildings are not really carbon-free. Their construction and maintenance usually demand the emission of the compound.
Another example of greenwashing in sustainable architecture are eco-friendly buildings. This case shares the problem of the previous one: it seems positive, but often it is not. The lack of a standard to define eco-friendly buildings allows companies to create their own metrics.
Although there are environmentally friendly architectural projects, most of them are not. Buildings depend on energy and resources to be built.
As a third example, we can mention renewable energy sources. A very present characteristic in sustainable architecture, they do not escape the processes of greenwashing. Many buildings presented as sustainable actually use conventional energy to function.
Furthermore, it is common to find renewable energy systems in projects that are generally not sustainable. The systems lose their sustainable context to help sell a building as "green".
We also find greenwashing in constructions that use sustainable materials. Many architectural projects advocate the application of natural resources in their planning. However, as we saw in the sin of vagueness, this does not mean that the building is sustainable. In some cases, the green materials presented can have a negative impact on the environment, contradicting their main objective.
The practice of greenwashing must be fought as soon as possible. For this to happen, it is important that consumers are aware. It is necessary to know the pillars of sustainability to identify false claims and information. Along with this, it is also important that regulation is more specific and rigorous.
We conclude that greenwashing is a deceptive practice that harms the image of sustainable architecture. It is essential that professionals in the area work together to ensure more efficient and truly green projects. This planning not only benefits the resident in saving water and energy, but also the environment by reducing its impact on nature.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ArchShopArchShopArchShop is redefining the concept of residential architecture in Brazil, making high-quality projects accessible to everyone. Combining over 20 years of expertise in the construction sector with technological innovation, the company offers a complete digital platform that simplifies and democratizes the process of building the dream home.
See also
In this article, we will present 5 Brazilian cities that are a reference in architecture and that enchant visitors with their imposing constructions and beautiful urban landscapes.
Inspired by the rich history of the region, it has evolved to embrace minimalism, a clean aesthetic, and an unwavering appreciation for the beauty of natural materials.
Retrofit emerges as a fundamental practice in the revitalization and modernization of old constructions, preserving their historical essence.
Futuristic architecture sparks the imagination with its innovative forms, avant-garde aesthetics, and bold vision of the future.
Advertise or Publish
We believe that the best ideas arise from the exchange of experiences and the sharing of different perspectives. Open the doors to new opportunities and be part of our blog! If you have an interesting article, an amazing work, a product or service that deserves to be highlighted, contact us.