“Eco-friendly.” “Green certified.” “Sustainably sourced.” We’ve all seen these buzzwords on product brochures and building material samples. Too often, such labels are vague or unverified, masking a reality that is far less benign than it sounds. Greenwashing in architecture can range from a supplier overstating the recycled content of a material to entire buildings being marketed as “sustainable” based on superficial features. These misleading claims not only deceive well-intentioned architects and clients but also undermine genuine sustainability efforts. Resources get channeled into solutions that might look green on paper yet deliver negligible benefits – or worse, cause unrecognized harm.
One striking example is the overuse of token eco-features like green walls or bamboo flooring to brand a project “green,” even if the core construction relies on carbon-heavy concrete and steel. Concrete itself is a major climate culprit: cement manufacturing (the key ingredient in concrete) is responsible for roughly 7–8% of global CO₂ emissions (ref. weforum.org). A building boasting solar panels and a rooftop garden, but constructed with unsustainably sourced materials, might still have a massive carbon footprint. In such cases, greenwashing isn’t just harmless marketing spin – it actively distracts from the very real environmental impact of construction. As a report in The Guardian noted, greenwash tactics in building design may actually aggravate climate change by delaying meaningful action (ref. theguardian.com).
To combat greenwashing, architects must maintain a healthy skepticism. Don’t take sustainability claims at face value. Instead, dig deeper for verification. If a paint is advertised as “non-toxic and eco-friendly,” check if it has independent low-VOC certifications or health product declarations. If a supplier claims “50% energy savings” from a new insulation product, ask for the data or standards behind that number. In essence, moving beyond greenwashing requires shifting from marketing jargon to measurable facts. The good news is that the architecture community is rallying behind transparency – and a wealth of tools and standards now exist to help verify what’s true sustainability versus slick PR.
Why Vetting Materials Matters
Material choice lies at the heart of sustainable architecture. The production, transport, installation, and disposal of building materials all carry environmental and health impacts. Selecting one material over another can significantly alter a project’s carbon footprint and indoor environmental quality. For instance, using locally sourced timber in place of imported steel can cut emissions by reducing transport and tapping a renewable resource. Likewise, choosing insulation with zero ozone-depleting chemicals safeguards both the planet and occupants’ health. But these benefits only hold if the materials truly perform as advertised – which is why careful vetting is essential.
The scale of impact is enormous. Manufacturing basic construction materials like cement and steel contributes massively to global emissions. We’ve noted cement’s ~8% share of CO₂ emissions; add steel production and together they account for an outsized chunk of the building sector’s carbon problem (ref. reuters.com). Beyond climate impact, consider human health: building materials can off-gas toxic chemicals (formaldehyde in cheap plywood, phthalates in vinyl flooring, VOCs in paints) that degrade indoor air quality. There are over 85,000 industrial chemicals in use worldwide, yet the United States has banned fewer than ten of them outright (ref. 2050-materials.com). In other words, many potentially harmful substances remain legal and common in manufacturing. Without vetting, architects could unwittingly specify materials that contain carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, undermining the “do no harm” principle of design.
Vetting materials means looking at a material’s full story: How is it made? What is it made of? What happens when it’s no longer needed? This life-cycle perspective is increasingly crucial. Embodied carbon – the CO₂ emitted to extract, refine, produce, and transport materials – typically makes up 11% (or more) of global emissions (ref. worldgbc.org), and a much higher portion of a building’s emissions in cases where operations are energy-efficient. If we ignore these upstream and downstream impacts, even a net-zero energy building could carry a hefty carbon debt from its construction. In short, choosing truly sustainable materials (and not just advertised as such) is one of the most impactful decisions an architect can make. It affects not only the building’s carbon footprint but also ecosystems (through mining or forestry practices), air and water quality (through manufacturing pollution), and the health of those constructing and occupying the space.
Trusted Certifications and Labels to Rely On
How can architects discern the truly green products from the imposters? One key strategy is to look for credible third-party certifications and transparency labels. Reputable certifications are earned through rigorous evaluation by independent organizations, not paid for as marketing.
Cradle to Cradle Certified is a product certification that evaluates materials for human and environmental safety, future reuse, renewable energy use, water stewardship, and social fairness. The concept of “cradle to cradle,” coined by Walter Stahel and popularized by architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart, describes products designed for a continuous life cycle—either biodegradable or endlessly recyclable (architectmagazine.com). A Cradle to Cradle Certified product has been assessed for material health, recyclability, and sustainable production processes, ensuring it is genuinely eco-conscious rather than destined for landfill after one use.
FSC-Certified Wood, verified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), guarantees that timber and wood products come from responsibly managed forests with sustainable harvesting practices. FSC certification prevents deforestation and biodiversity loss, making it a more reliable standard than vague “sustainable” claims from vendors. Recognized globally, FSC is widely regarded as a benchmark for ethical forestry.
GreenGuard and Low-VOC Certifications ensure that paints, adhesives, flooring, and furniture meet strict indoor air quality standards. While many products are marketed as “low odor” or “non-toxic,” certifications like UL GREENGUARD and California’s CDPH Standard Method (CA Section 01350) confirm low chemical emissions. FloorScore certifies flooring materials that minimize volatile organic compounds (VOCs), helping architects select products that won’t compromise indoor air quality.
Energy Star and WaterSense, backed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), certify energy- and water-efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures. Though not specific to raw building materials, these labels ensure reliable sustainability claims for operational efficiency in buildings. Specifying Energy Star-rated equipment or WaterSense fixtures contributes to overall energy and water conservation.
LEED, WELL, and Living Building Challenge (LBC) certifications guide sustainable material choices at the whole-building level. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) awards points for using products with Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and Health Product Declarations (HPDs), as well as materials that are local, recycled, and free from harmful chemicals. The WELL Building Standard prioritizes occupant health, requiring careful selection of low-emitting materials. LBC is the most rigorous, outright banning harmful chemicals listed on its Red List and requiring a percentage of materials to be salvaged or locally sourced. Even if a project isn’t seeking formal certification, architects can use these frameworks as sustainability benchmarks, avoiding materials with toxic components like formaldehyde, PVC, and flame retardants.
ISO and EN Standards for Environmental Declarations provide additional credibility for sustainability claims. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), produced according to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 standards, offer transparent data on a product’s carbon footprint, water usage, and environmental impact (sites.udel.edu). While an EPD does not judge whether a product is “good” or “bad,” it allows architects to compare materials objectively. Health Product Declarations (HPDs) go further by listing a product’s chemical ingredients and potential health risks. Reviewing an HPD helps architects identify hazardous substances, such as Red List chemicals in insulation. Together, EPDs and HPDs provide a data-driven approach to cutting through greenwashing and ensuring truly sustainable material choices.
In evaluating certifications, consider the source and criteria. Not every green label is created equal. As one sustainable building expert quipped, some organizations will “put green stickers on anything for a dollar,” while others truly aim for transparency (ref. buildwithrise.com). A good practice is to research the certifier: Is it an independent non-profit (more likely to be stringent) or an industry trade group (which might have looser standards favoring its members)? Also examine what the certification covers – is it looking at the product’s entire life cycle or just one attribute? For example, a “recycled content” label tells you nothing about toxicity or emissions, only that it contains recycled material. In contrast, Cradle to Cradle or LBC Declare labels address multiple aspects.
Figure: Example of a Declare label for a building product. The International Living Future Institute’s Declare program provides a “nutrition label” listing all ingredients in a product, along with its life expectancy, end-of-life options, and compliance with green building criteria. This transparency helps architects quickly identify if a product contains any Red List toxins or meets sustainability standards. Credits: declare.living-future.org
One of the most architect-friendly transparency tools is the Declare label by the International Living Future Institute. As ILFI explains, “Declare is a nutrition label for building products. It is designed to help specifiers quickly identify products that meet their project requirements.” (ref. living-future.org).
Manufacturers who participate disclose 100% of their product’s ingredients (at least down to 0.01% of each ingredient by weight) on a label that anyone can read. The label clearly flags any Red List chemicals and shows a product’s status as “Red List Free,” “Red List Approved (with exceptions),” or simply “Declared” (if it contains a Red List substance that isn’t exempt) (ref. living-future.org). It also notes other sustainability factors like whether the product is FSC certified, its VOC emissions, and even its carbon footprint if available. Declare labels take a lot of the detective work out of vetting – an architect can check the Declare database and immediately get trusted information. Other notable programs include GreenScreen (which rates chemical hazard levels) and B Corp certification (which, while company-wide, indicates an overall commitment to social and environmental ethics that can trickle down to product responsibility). By prioritizing materials with robust certifications and disclosures, architects can drastically reduce the risk of greenwashing.
Making Informed Material Choices: Vetting Strategies
With a vast and constantly evolving range of building products, architects must take a structured approach to vetting sustainable materials. A key step is to research and cross-reference claims rather than accepting them at face value. If a manufacturer states that a product contains 50% recycled content, it’s essential to determine whether the source is post-consumer waste or industrial scrap and whether an independent body has verified the percentage. Many reputable manufacturers provide supporting documentation, such as recycled content certificates and lifecycle assessment reports. If such data isn’t readily available, reaching out to the manufacturer is necessary. Transparent companies will readily provide proof, while vague responses may indicate greenwashing. The Green Building Alliance (GBA), a non-profit dedicated to sustainable innovation, recommends using trusted databases and frameworks, such as the Six Classes of Chemicals, to avoid harmful materials (buildwithrise.com). Architects can develop a checklist for each material, reviewing certifications, searching for Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and Health Product Declarations (HPDs), and examining real-world case studies before making a selection.
Reliable databases and digital tools streamline the vetting process. Platforms like mindful MATERIALS aggregate transparency documents, including HPDs, EPDs, and Declare labels, making it easier for designers to filter products based on sustainability criteria. The Pharos Project scores materials on environmental and health impacts, while Red2Green, developed by Integrated Eco Strategy, helps project teams ensure compliance with Living Building Challenge standards. Using these tools, architects can quickly flag materials with problematic ingredients. For example, an interior designer sourcing sustainable carpets can search mindful MATERIALS for products with Cradle to Cradle certification and a Declare label, ensuring they meet stringent environmental criteria. Additionally, Life Cycle Assessment software, such as One Click LCA and Tally, allows architects to quantify the embodied carbon of proposed materials, ensuring data-driven comparisons. By integrating these technologies, architects can move beyond marketing language to measurable, fact-based sustainability assessments.
Transparency and ingredient safety should always be a priority when selecting materials. Products that fully disclose their content and avoid worst-in-class chemicals are preferable to those with proprietary or undisclosed ingredients. The Living Building Challenge Red List flags some of the most harmful substances, including formaldehyde, PVC (vinyl), halogenated flame retardants, phthalates, PFAS “forever chemicals,” and heavy metals like lead and mercury (living-future.org). Many manufacturers now offer alternatives, such as formaldehyde-free engineered wood or flooring free from PVC and phthalates. However, marketing terms like “natural” and “non-toxic” lack legal definitions and are often misleading. Even wood products labeled as “natural” may contain formaldehyde-based adhesives. Architects should request material safety datasheets and full ingredient lists to make informed decisions, much like a nutritionist analyzing food labels.
Figure: In Belgium, France and Iceland, 100% of reported water bodies have levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate or ‘forever chemicals’ exceeding quality standards. (credits: Envato Elements)
A truly sustainable material must be evaluated for its entire lifecycle, from production to disposal. Some materials may seem environmentally friendly during installation but contribute to waste and pollution at the end of their use. It’s important to assess both upstream impacts, such as whether a material was produced with renewable energy or extracted from an endangered ecosystem, and downstream impacts, such as whether it is recyclable or biodegradable. While metals like aluminum and steel have high initial carbon footprints, their recyclability makes them preferable over petroleum-based carpets that end up in landfills. Certifications like Cradle to Cradle emphasize end-of-life considerations, ensuring materials can be safely reused or decomposed. Architects should ask suppliers about take-back programs, packaging reclamation, and recycling options. Products with clear end-of-life strategies reflect a deeper commitment to sustainability.
Staying informed is essential, as sustainability standards evolve rapidly. What was once considered a gold standard may now be outdated, and new research frequently leads to regulatory changes and the banning of previously accepted chemicals. Architects should engage in continuous education by attending sustainability conferences, subscribing to industry publications, and participating in professional networks. Organizations like the Green Building Alliance, American Institute of Architects (AIA), and U.S. Green Building Council provide valuable updates on material standards. The AIA’s Materials Pledge encourages architects to prioritize climate health, human health, and social responsibility in material selection. Keeping track of regulatory shifts, such as embodied carbon reporting requirements or new restrictions on hazardous flame retardants, allows architects to stay ahead of compliance issues. Making sustainability a core professional competency ensures that misleading claims are less likely to slip through, fostering a more responsible approach to material selection.
By following these strategies, architects can develop a robust material vetting process that catches issues early and identifies truly sustainable options. It may seem daunting at first – after all, specifiers juggle thousands of products across a building project – but the task is made manageable by breaking it down: use third-party info, trust but verify, and lean on established frameworks rather than starting from scratch. In doing so, architects not only protect the integrity of their projects but also send a clear message to manufacturers that transparency and genuine sustainability are the cost of entry for modern building products.
Evolving Standards and Recent Developments in Sustainable Materials
Sustainable material vetting is not a static target – it’s a rapidly evolving landscape shaped by technology, policy, and industry leadership. In the last few years, we’ve seen significant developments that both make vetting easier and raise the bar for what counts as “sustainable”. It’s important for architects to stay abreast of these changes, as they often unlock new opportunities or set new requirements for projects. Here are some recent trends and regulatory shifts worth noting.
- Stronger Anti-Greenwashing Regulations: Governments are beginning to crack down on misleading environmental claims. In the European Union, for example, policymakers have proposed rules that would ban generic terms like “eco-friendly” or “carbon neutral” in marketing unless backed by detailed evidence. Consumer protection agencies are keeping a closer eye on false sustainability advertising. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is updating its Green Guides (guidelines for environmental marketing claims) to address modern issues like carbon offsets and recyclability claims. This regulatory pressure means manufacturers will need to substantiate their claims or face penalties. For architects, that’s a welcome development – it should gradually clear out some of the worst greenwashing and ensure that when a product says “sustainable”, there are data to support it. It also means architects might soon see more standardized labels (for instance, a product might be required to display its carbon footprint or recycling rate, much like nutrition labels on food). Transparency, in other words, is becoming law, not just best practice
informedinfrastructure.com. - Focus on Embodied Carbon and Climate Declarations: A decade ago, the emphasis in green building was largely on operational energy (insulation, HVAC efficiency, etc.). Now there is a sweeping realization that embodied carbon is a critical piece of the puzzle. Leading organizations such as the World Green Building Council and Architecture 2030 have called for significant reductions in embodied carbon by 2030, and ultimately net-zero embodied carbon by 2050. Tools like the EC3 (Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator) have gained traction – this free database allows architects and engineers to compare the carbon footprints of concrete, steel, glass, and other materials, based on mill-specific EPD data. Moreover, some jurisdictions have started implementing “Buy Clean” laws that set carbon limits for materials in public projects. California’s Buy Clean Act, for instance, mandates EPDs and has established maximum allowable global warming potential for certain materials like structural steel and flat glass. Similar policies are being adopted or considered in places like New York City and the EU (which in 2024 launched plans for carbon footprint disclosures in building codes). The result is that on many projects, providing environmental data is no longer optional – it’s required. Architects should expect to request and use EPDs for most structural and envelope materials as part of basic practice. The upside is a new level of data granularity: you can now choose, say, one concrete mix over another based on a quantified 30% carbon savings, with confidence backed by third-party verified numbers.
- Transparency and Material Health Go Mainstream: The movement for healthy building materials – free of harmful chemicals – has also accelerated. Ten years ago, only a handful of niche products had Declare labels or HPDs. Now, thousands of products across almost every category have ingredient disclosures. The mindful MATERIALS database has grown into a go-to catalog for designers, aggregating transparency documents from countless manufacturers. Even big brands in furniture, flooring, and paint have started to reformulate products to meet LEED v4 requirements and client demands for healthier materials. For example, you can easily find case studies of entire office interiors where every finish and piece of furniture was vetted to be Red List–free or compliant. The availability of healthier options is better than ever. Additionally, innovative certifications like Certified Environmental Product (by GreenSeal) or Declare 2.0 now integrate not just whether a product is healthy, but also considerations like supply chain impacts and circularity. There’s also a push towards “material passports” – digital records that travel with building components to inform future reuse or recycling. This concept, trialed in some European projects, could become common practice, ensuring that the effort put into vetting materials continues to yield benefits at a building’s end of life. All these developments mean architects have fewer excuses not to choose healthy materials – the market is moving in that direction, and it’s getting easier to specify a completely Red List–free project.
- Industry Commitments and Knowledge Sharing: Architecture and construction firms themselves are banding together to demand better materials. In 2018, dozens of leading design firms signed the Architects Declare pledge (not to be confused with the ILFI Declare label; this pledge is a statement of addressing climate and biodiversity emergencies in practice). Many have since added internal policies to vet materials for sustainability. The AIA’s Materials Pledge, mentioned earlier, now has hundreds of signatories committing to consider climate, health, equity, circularity, and transparency in materials. Organizations like the Carbon Leadership Forum have fostered communities of practice around low-carbon materials. This means there’s a growing wealth of shared knowledge – if you’re tackling a material vetting challenge, chances are someone else in the community has tips or solutions (be it finding a non-toxic alternate for a certain epoxy, or the best low-carbon concrete mix for a high-rise). Even competitors are collaborating on sustainability, recognizing that everyone wins by greening the supply chain. For instance, large tech companies and real estate developers have formed buyers coalitions to ask manufacturers for specific disclosures or improvements. The bottom line for architects: you’re not alone in this. Tap into professional networks, attend forums, and leverage the collective push from the industry. Manufacturers listen when big clients and many firms speak with one voice – and that voice is increasingly saying “prove your sustainability or we’ll specify something else.”
- Emergence of New Sustainable Materials: On the materials science front, there’s a constant stream of new products vying for the title of “most sustainable.” Examples include concrete mixes that use novel cement substitutes (slashing CO₂), steel made via electric arc furnaces with renewable energy, insulation made from mycelium (mushroom roots) or agricultural waste, and 3D-printed building blocks made from recycled plastic. While exciting, these new materials still need careful vetting. Architects should approach them with both optimism and caution. Ask for pilot project data: Has this mushroom insulation been tested for fire safety and insulating value? Does the low-carbon concrete have the necessary strength and durability proven through standards? Early adopters need to do extra homework, but successful innovations often come with transparent research and certifications in tow. Many startups seeking to disrupt traditional materials are working with universities and certification bodies to validate their claims (knowing that skepticism is high). Keep an eye out for grant-funded demonstration projects or independent evaluations when considering a cutting-edge material. In time, some of these could become mainstream options that dramatically reduce environmental impact. For example, mass timber (engineered wood like CLT) has seen a renaissance as a replacement for steel and concrete in mid-rise structures, and its sustainability credentials (renewable, carbon-storing, lighter footprint) are well documented
theguardian.com
. Architects who stay informed can be among the first to leverage such materials appropriately, giving their projects an edge in sustainability.
In summary, the ecosystem around sustainable materials is maturing. Transparency is increasing, data are more robust, and the definition of “sustainable material” is broadening to include not just environmental factors, but health, social, and lifecycle considerations. Regulations are beginning to reinforce what progressive architects and clients have been doing voluntarily. By keeping up with these developments, architects can continuously refine their vetting process – phasing out materials that fall behind the times and embracing those that lead the way. The result will be buildings that are not only greener in intent but verifiably greener in reality, with documentation to back it up.
A vision of truly sustainable architecture—where material transparency, lifecycle impact, and responsible sourcing come together to create healthier, greener spaces.
Conclusion
The era of unchecked greenwashing in building materials is waning. In its place, a culture of accountability and knowledge is rising – one where architects play a pivotal role. By thoroughly vetting materials, architects ensure that a project’s sustainability claims are honest and substantiated. This diligence builds trust with clients and the public, and it delivers buildings that genuinely perform better for the environment and human well-being. It’s a win-win that also pushes the industry forward: when enough specifiers demand truly sustainable products, manufacturers either improve or risk irrelevance.
In practice, vetting sustainable materials comes down to a few fundamental principles: be curious, be skeptical, and be informed. Ask questions about origin, composition, and impact. Doubt grand claims until they’re verified. And take advantage of the wealth of information and tools now available – from certification labels to online databases and expert networks. Every material choice is an opportunity to reduce harm and increase positive impact, whether it’s cutting carbon emissions, eliminating toxins, supporting ethical supply chains, or all of the above.
Importantly, rely on credible sources and standards as your compass. Publications like The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal have highlighted the urgency and challenges of truly sustainable construction, bringing issues like corporate greenwashing and heavy material impacts into the mainstream theguardian.com, wastaway.com. Non-profits and councils such as the Green Building Alliance and World Green Building Council offer guidance grounded in research and industry consensus. Programs like ILFI’s Declare, Cradle to Cradle, and LEED provide roadmaps to follow. These sources of truth are allies in the quest to build responsibly. By cross-referencing multiple credible references, architects can be confident in separating fact from fiction.
The path “beyond greenwashing” is one of continuous improvement and commitment. It may add some upfront effort to scrutinize that flooring spec or to source an unusual certified product, but the reward is durable: a building that stands on a foundation of integrity. As architects, our duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of occupants and the broader public extends to the materials we put into our buildings. In championing truly sustainable materials, we not only design better structures – we also help construct a better future, one brick (of zero-carbon brick, of course) at a time.
A vision of truly sustainable architecture—where material transparency, lifecycle impact, and responsible sourcing come together to create healthier, greener spaces.