1. An allegation without verifiable basis

The term "ecological" is used here to describe a project that emphasizes energy efficiency, partially recycled materials, a climate well, or a Mediterranean Sustainable Building (BDM) approach. These are all commendable technical elements, but they fall under the umbrella of energy performance, not ecology in the strict sense.

CNC (National Consumer Council) 2023 guide reminds us , a statement is considered misleading when it refers to an environmental benefit without evidence, a defined scope, or a recognized standard. The word "ecological" implies consideration of ecosystems, biodiversity, soils, water, ecological corridors, species, etc. 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 those involving omission or inaccuracy. The use of the word "ecological" without demonstration or proof constitutes, in this respect, an unfounded environmental claim, potentially punishable by law.

The CNC specifically warns against these generic uses that perpetuate the confusion between energy performance and ecology, while circumventing transparency requirements. The Council recommends, among other things:

• to avoid global terms such as "ecological" if they are not backed by a defined reference framework;
• to specify the exact scope of the allegation;
• to rely on a verifiable certification.

While the technical efforts of the Setec project are genuine, they must be rigorously assessed. Talking about a low-carbon building, or energy performance, is relevant if these elements are measured and certified. Referring to a building as "ecological" is not, unless a systemic approach integrating natural balances and biodiversity is demonstrated.

This semantic shift is strategic: it allows for public recognition, media coverage, and even institutional distinctions, without meeting the technical, scientific, or regulatory requirements of the ecological transition. This is precisely what the law seeks to prevent.

Conclusion: vigilance is necessary

The article in La Marseillaise thus offers a textbook case. The point here is not to criticize the project, but to highlight a fundamental issue: words have legal weight. Using the word "ecological" is binding and requires proof. Without it, all transition initiatives suffer, their credibility being diluted.

At IRICE, we advocate for 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.