Lu, W; Du, L; Tam, V W Y; Feng, Q and Huo, L (2026) Sharing indexes and heterogeneity update of green building rating systems: Evidence of holistic comparative analysis. International Journal of Construction Management, 26(1), pp. 76-98. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Different social, economic, and cultural contexts across countries have hindered the development of universally applicable green building rating systems. Incompatible scenarios, diverse market needs, and incomplete assessment frameworks often reduce these standards to basic checklists rather than effective evaluation tools. This weakens their ability to drive outcomes like resource conservation and emission reduction. To address these issues, this paper compares three major systems—BREEAM, LEED, and ESGB—through case studies. Key findings suggest the need to: (1) Refine product and component evaluation criteria, extend assessments across the green building supply chain, increase evaluation flexibility, and establish follow-up performance reviews; (2) Implement a dynamic weighting system incorporating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for fairer, goal-oriented evaluations; and (3) Streamline evaluation items, enhance indicator performance and operability, improve interpretation and management of quantitative data, integrate innovative technologies, emphasize early design stages, and refine methods for assessing multifunctional buildings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BREEAM; esgb; green building; LEED; rating system |
| Index terms: | case study, evaluation tool, early design stage, resource conservation, BREEAM accreditation, life cycle assessment, comparative analysis, green building, evidence |
| Subjects: | sustainable design, design process, evaluation and assessment methods, environmental impact, environmental policy, design practice, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Design Practice, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here