I hate to do these kinds of posts but this particular issue has been eating at me for some time.  I did contact the party in question about a year ago regarding their green marketing error but they still continue to misrepresent themselves.  At the same time, I am also being encouraged from industry experts to post something. If you are a frequent reader of this blog you’ll know I always try and keep things up-beat and tell good green stories but alas, all things are not as green as they seem.  As a green business/green building media outlet we have an obligation to our customers and visitors to keep our information factual and accurate. So in some ways, this is a disclaimer of sorts.

About a year ago, I was asked to help promote iPark, a proposed green project in Norwalk at the old PerkinElmer facility, by a colleague of buildingctgreen.com who worked for one of the stakeholders involved with the project. I was told the project was pursuing the U.S. Green Building Council’s (U.S. GBC) LEED certification.  I reviewed the iPark Web site and that’s when I first noticed they were misrepresenting themselves and the LEED trademark by adding an “S” to LEED, an acronym that stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.  There’s no “S”.  The site also said the project was certified when the project wasn’t even registered.  I sent an email to my contact and one to the Contact Us email address on the Web site to let them know of the faux pas they had made in green marketing.  I still posted an article based on a press release my contact sent me thinking they would change the copy on the site.  They didn’t.

It’s been about a year now and green building insiders are starting to quietly talk among themselves about the claims being made at iPark. As of today, the site still promotes the property as LEEDS Certified.  While the property does feature some green aspects, National RE/Sources, the developer of the property and whose Web site does get LEED right, is taking a huge risk mislabeling the Norwalk project and at best is borderline greenwashing;  and at worst it’s hurting the creditability of the green building industry.  Many projects here and elsewhere have taken the necessary steps to obtain LEED certification by registering it and waiting patiently for certification.  They are following standard operating procedure which comes at a cost. What National RE/Sources is doing is misusing the LEED trademark at the expense of other legitimate LEED projects.   Here are some other observations.

• Though the U.S.  GBC’s site was down today, as of late last week, when the site was up, from what I could tell; the project was still not even registered LEED yet – far from certified.
• A marketing firm that is housed in the building states on its Web site that it occupies space in a LEED certified building.  They got LEED right but are misrepresenting themselves.  I am also told that the building has signage throughout proclaiming LEEDS Certified.
• The Stamford Advocate which is doing a great job of covering green business and green building activity in Fairfield County fell into the greenbuzz craze too. The paper reviewed a Fairfield County Green Drinks event held at iPark last week and the story stated the building was certified under LEED.  A little miss-reporting can also hurt the credibility of the media even though they love the green story.

While I’m sure National RE/Sources will hear from others in the coming days and will get it right, they need to take the necessary steps immediately and correct this misguided green marketing strategy and stop marketing iPark as something it’s not.  No one said it’s not a green development; they just aren’t LEEDS certified.  Then again, no building is LEEDS certified.

Filed under: Green Buildings, Green Labels, Green Media