Biodiversity and greenwashing

And that's great! When companies began calculating greenhouse gas emissions and setting decarbonization plans a few years ago, we were inundated with declarations about achieving „net zero” and being „climate neutral” in the near future. These were often based on cherry-picking (selecting convenient data and ignoring unfavorable data) and the use of offsets, which, as we know, cannot be the basis for decarbonization plans. The powerful greenwashing machine has slowed down the plans of many companies to actually reduce their emissions. In the case of biodiversity and managing its impact, there is a chance that this will not be the case. At least we have been warned in time.

On May 25, I participated in the Third Tri-City Green Building Day. During this conference, Justyna Biernacka presented practical conclusions from the first year of applying the Taxonomy criteria to the real estate development and construction industry. One of the main topics of the conference was biodiversity, and the individual presentations and panel discussions focused on two related aspects.

The first was to look for solutions that would allow for the protection and restoration of biodiversity in the case of construction projects. The problem is not only the lack of knowledge and willingness to implement such solutions by most development companies. Knowledge can be gradually transferred, and willingness will come with the EU Taxonomy requirements applied by financial institutions. The second problem, often more serious, is the mismatch between current regulations and the current state of scientific knowledge. Developers who are often willing to implement solutions, together with designers and biodiversity experts, have to look for specific „loopholes” in the regulations that allow them to recreate a fragment of the local ecosystem around the building under construction instead of laying turf from a roll.

The second aspect discussed at the conference was the prevalence of greenwashing practices in the field of biodiversity. A prime example of this is, of course, beehives on building roofs, which are now boasted about by probably every other company that prepares ESG reports. Another example, common in the real estate development industry, is the so-called green walls, i.e., the installation of special structures on building facades, on which appropriate plant species are planted. We can then read that such a wall „breathes,” „absorbs CO₂”, „captures pollutants.” These statements are usually true in themselves, but those who publish them do not provide information about the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the production of this installation, its use, the periodic planting of dying plants, how much water is needed to irrigate it, and what proportion of the planted plants are exotic or invasive species. The cost-benefit balance of this type of installation is clearly negative.

Fortunately, we have more and more tools that help companies assess their impact on biodiversity (e.g., recommendations TNFD) and manage it (objectives announced on May 24, 2023 SBTN – Science Based Targets for Nature. At MATERIALITY, we are also conducting pilot projects to study the impact of companies on biodiversity, and we have already written about this topic in our newsletter and blog (Justyna Biernacka's entry from April 24) and we will write more often in the future.