Introduction

Scientific research published in 2025 sheds significant light on the mechanisms associated with greenwashing in the real estate sector. The study “What drives stock market reactions to greenwashing? An event study of European companies” (Finance Research Letters, 2025) analyzes 296 European cases and shows that the contested situations are primarily based on unverifiable information, high information asymmetry, and a strong reliance on documents produced by the operator. These results extend the mechanisms described in “Exaggerating, distracting, or window-dressing? An empirical study on firm greenwashing recognition” (Yuan, Xu & Shang, 2024) and in “Greenwashing and market value of firms: An empirical study” (Xu et al., 2025), which converge on the same conclusion: primarily descriptive mechanisms are objectively more exposed to the risk of weak or ambiguous signals.

These studies do not evaluate existing tools, but they describe two distinct methodological configurations: – approaches based on project description, dependent on operator declarations; – approaches based on independent, reproducible, and verifiable evidence. This distinction helps to clarify, without comparing them, the evaluation logics currently used in real estate and urban planning.

1. The scientific observation: information asymmetry as a central factor

The study, conducted on 296 cases of greenwashing, shows that the risks of false claims arise primarily when:

• Environmental information is transmitted via documents produced by the operator;
• the evaluation is based on a qualitative description or a narrative of the project;
• the criteria used are not reproducible by a third party;
• The evidence depends on elements that are not measured or cannot be falsified.

These configurations create what researchers call information asymmetry, a mechanism that increases the likelihood of public criticism or protest. The logic is not moral; it is structural.

2. A first family of tools: the descriptive approach

International studies describe a first category of environmental devices characterized by:

• an assessment supported by documents, plans or photos provided by the client;
• criteria relating to quality of use, comfort, presentation or perceived value of the project;
• the absence of a standardized protocol for collecting evidence;
• a significant reliance on expert interpretation;
• adjustable weightings to adapt to the diversity of projects.

These methods play a useful role in assessing and understanding the project's intentions. However, from an academic perspective, they share several traits with the greenwashing cases studied: not because they are inherently wrong, but because they allow for a high degree of interpretive latitude, identified in the literature as a potential source of uncertainty.

3. A second family of tools: the evidence-based normative approach

The literature distinguishes another category, structured around:

• reproducible ecological measures;
• inventories conducted with defined protocols;
• thresholds that cannot be modified and are identical from one project to another;
• falsifiable indicators (soils, pressures, continuities, cohabitations, dynamics);
• evaluation by an independent third party in accordance with international standards.

These characteristics align with recognized compliance frameworks (including the ISO principles for independent assessment). The literature shows that these approaches reduce information asymmetry, as performance no longer depends on narrative but on verifiable data.

Effinature belongs to this second family.

Not by commercial positioning, but by methodological structure:

• certification based on evidence only;
• measurable ecological indicators;
• independence guaranteed by an accredited body.

4. Perspective for project owners

Scientific analysis provides a simple framework for interpretation. The tools available today are distributed along two axes:

1. Descriptive axis: strong project valorization, logic of use, evidence provided by the operator, central role of interpretation.
2. Normative axis: measured requirements, reproducibility, neutrality of the evaluator, independent certification structure.

None of these approaches is “good” or “bad”. They serve different purposes:

• One sheds light on the design,
• The other ensures environmental performance.

However, the literature shows that media or financial allegations of greenwashing occur almost exclusively in the first scenario, where uncertainty is high. Hence the importance, for a project owner wishing to reduce their risk exposure, of favoring methodological frameworks where the evidence is independent.

Conclusion

Recent scientific work allows for a more relaxed interpretation:

• Some approaches rely on storytelling, mandated expertise, and project documentation;
• others on measurement, falsifiability and independence.

Effinature falls within this second logic.

The goal is not to compare tools, but to apply the lessons learned from the literature: the more objective the evidence, the less exposure there is to greenwashing. This is the clear trend emerging from the 2025 publications, and it is the one IRICE has chosen to follow.