The concept of Greenwashing
It is disarming to witness, for example, the ease with which these identifying adjectives and prefixes are used, confusing their real meanings, often erroneously announced as mutual synonyms or inserted in particular questionable contexts, but in reality aimed at creating only confusion in the minds of end users. And perhaps the improper use of these terms only has the precise purpose of deluding oneself into the validity of the proposals, hiding the truth in disguise.
This way of confusing meanings is part of the so-called “greenwashing”, an Anglo-Saxon term that identifies that misleading information strategy with which, under the aegis of slogans such as eco, bio or eco-biosustainable, etc., speculative intentions are hidden, ethically incorrect marketing attitudes in which negative impacts are omitted for the sole purpose of taking advantage of consumer sensitivity, but without providing any objective advantage towards the environment.
I can understand the ignorance of the common person (ignorance in the sense of ignoring the real meaning), regarding the inappropriate use of these expressions, but what I cannot conceive is the ease with which the construction technician uses the well-known prefixes eco, bio, etc., trusting what is fed to him by the media, by the producers of materials, as well as by the construction market.
But the most serious distortion is not knowing how to recognize the meaning of each term or the combination of each prefix, confusing them, when in reality each term has its own meaning. In this way we become counterculture and distort reality.
The true meaning of these terms
In the context of the construction materials market – but it could be in any other context – it is necessary, as honestly as possible, to give the right meaning to these terms.
Therefore, when can a material be defined as ecological? When its impact on the environment is minimal in its life cycle, i.e. when it does not alter the eco-system, understood as the biological system of a given area, which interacts in a particular morphological and environmental context.
When can we define a bio-compatible material? When it respects human and animal health. The biocompatibility of a material, in fact, is its intrinsic ability to interact positively with the environment that hosts it, without causing reactive immune reactions.
When can a material be considered renewable? When by its own nature it can regrow and regenerate, making itself available in the future to perform the same function and therefore be reused for the same purpose.
When is a material recyclable? When, as a waste product, it cannot be reused as a basic raw material, but can again be used in production processes of a different nature, for other purposes.
When is a material sustainable? In simple words, when it does not affect the ecological footprint of the Planet, when it is always available for future generations and contains all the prefixes mentioned, i.e. it is a recyclable, renewable, compostable, biodegradable and long-lived material.
Sustainability: the reference framework
Let’s focus for a moment on this last definition of “sustainable”, perhaps the most used adjective today in all fields and, at the same time, the most abused and subject to greenwashing.
To fully understand its meaning, it is necessary to better specify the concept of “sustainable development”, as enunciated by Gro Harlem Brundtland(1) in 1987, as well as the meaning of “ecological footprint”. Sustainability derives from the original sustainable development, defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.”
A very clear concept which simply translates into: “do not waste resources that are not regenerable because nature cannot provide them continuously” and therefore, in daily practice, it is necessary to use materials that can also be made available for our children, for our grandchildren and for all future generations.
The ecological footprint, on the other hand, is a complex indicator that is used to evaluate human consumption of natural resources, compared to Planet Earth’s ability to regenerate them. Sustainability and ecological footprint are two clear and direct concepts that always travel hand in hand in discussions on ecology, both that which concerns the natural environment and the anthropized ecology of urban areas.
Notes
(1) Gro Harlem Brundtland, a Norwegian environmental doctor and politician, chaired the drafting of the report Our Common Future (Our common futurealso known as the “Brundtland Report”) under the aegis of the UN, in which the concept of sustainable development is introduced and defined.
