Biodiversity as a project lever
The article published in La Marseillaise on April 18, 2025, about the construction of Setec's new headquarters in Vitrolles, illustrates an increasingly widespread drift in environmental communication: the unsupervised use of the word "ecological". Far from being anecdotal, this type of allegation is part of a problem clearly identified by public authorities.
1. An allegation with no verifiable purpose
The word "ecological" is used here to describe an operation that features energy performance, partially recycled materials, a climatic well and a BDM (Bâtiment Durable Méditerranéen) approach. These are all commendable technical features, but they fall under the heading of energy performance, not ecology in the strict sense.
As the CNC (Conseil National de la Consommation) 2023 guide on environmental claims reminds us, a claim is deemed misleading when it refers to an environmental benefit without proof, a defined scope or a recognized benchmark. Yet the word "ecological" implies taking into account ecosystems, biodiversity, soil, water, ecological continuity, species, etc. None of these aspects are addressed in the claims. None of these aspects are addressed in the article. The reference is therefore inappropriate.
Article L.121-2 of the French Consumer Code prohibits misleading commercial practices, including by omission or imprecision. The use of the word "ecological" without demonstration or proof constitutes, in this respect, an unfounded environmental claim, potentially subject to sanction.
The CNC specifically warns about these generic uses, which perpetuate the confusion between energy performance and ecology, by circumventing transparency requirements. The Council recommends, among other things:
- avoid using all-encompassing terms such as "ecological" if they are not backed by a defined frame of reference;
- specify the exact scope of the allegation;
- rely on verifiable certification.
If the technical efforts of the Setec project are real, they must be rigorously qualified. Talk of a low-carbon building, or energy performance, is relevant if the elements are measured and certified. Talk of a "green" building is not, unless you can demonstrate a systemic approach that integrates natural balances and biodiversity.
This semantic shift is strategic: it enables us to gain public recognition, media coverage and even institutional distinction, without meeting the technical, scientific or regulatory requirements of the ecological transition. This is precisely what the law seeks to avoid.
Conclusion: the need for vigilance
The article in La Marseillaise is a textbook case. The point here is not to criticize the project, but to highlight a fundamental issue: words carry legal weight. The use of the word "ecological" is binding, and requires proof. Failing this, the whole of the transition process suffers, by diluting its credibility.
At IRICE, we advocate the rigorous use of environmental claims. This is the raison d'être of our certifications: to objectify, measure and trace, so that environmental commitments are not just stories, but facts.