Help: Why does ISO 14001 certification for eco-lodges actually increase carbon footprints due to supply chain inefficiencies?

I booked a supposedly "ISO 14001" certified eco‑lodge in the Alps last month. The marketing promised "carbon neutral" operations and a life‑cycle assessment that supposedly proved it. After digging into the report, I found:

• The bamboo furniture was sourced from a plantation in Southeast Asia with a GHG intensity 1.8× higher than local timber.
• Solar panels were manufactured in China where coal accounts for 70% of electricity, raising the embodied carbon.
• The hotel’s “carbon offset” scheme was a donation to a forest project that was already protected, effectively a no‑op.

The certification process seemed to focus on paperwork and compliance rather than real emissions reduction. Am I the only one who feels the ISO 14001 label is just green‑washing? Has anyone else noticed a similar disconnect between the certification and the actual environmental impact? I’d appreciate any data or anecdotes that confirm or refute this.

Also, does the supply chain inefficiency actually raise the overall footprint compared to a non‑certified lodge that uses local materials? The numbers don’t add up for me.