Sustainable Cityscape with Interconnected Green Buildings

Decoding Green Building Assessments: Are Sustainable Building Systems Truly Comprehensive?

Rhea Morgan in Climate & Environment August 2025 • 4 min read.

"A Deep Dive into the Strengths and Blind Spots of Sustainable Building Rating Systems Worldwide"

In a world increasingly focused on environmental responsibility, sustainable building has emerged as a cornerstone of eco-conscious design and construction. But how do we truly measure sustainability? Over the past decades, numerous sustainable building (SB) assessment systems, also known as green building rating systems, have sprung up worldwide. Systems like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) have become widely recognized, but a critical question remains: How comprehensive and consistent are these systems in evaluating building sustainability?

This article delves into an in-depth analysis of 11 prominent SB assessment systems from around the globe, scrutinizing the indicators they use and the aspects of sustainability they cover. By using a comprehensive benchmark—a 'Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI)'—this analysis reveals surprising gaps and inconsistencies in how different systems approach environmental, social, and economic factors. Understand the strengths and weaknesses of current SB assessment systems and gain insights into creating truly sustainable buildings.

Whether you're an architect, designer, policymaker, or simply an environmentally conscious individual, this exploration will provide a clearer understanding of what makes a building truly sustainable and how current assessment methods measure up.

What's Under the Microscope? Analyzing the Core of Sustainable Building Assessments

Sustainable Cityscape with Interconnected Green Buildings

To conduct a rigorous evaluation, a 'Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI)' was created. This list acts as a benchmark, compiling indicators from 11 established SB assessment systems. These systems span various geographic regions, excluding Africa due to data limitations, and include well-known frameworks like Green Star (Australia), DGNB (Germany), BEAM (Hong Kong), CASBEE (Japan), G-SEED (Korea), GSAS (Qatar), Green Mark (Singapore), Pearl (UAE), BREEAM (UK), LEED (USA), and SBTool (International).

The CLOSBI encompasses a total of 785 indicators initially identified across the 11 systems. After eliminating duplicates, the list was refined to 564 unique indicators, each measuring distinct aspects of building sustainability. These indicators were then organized into 24 categories and 61 subcategories, aligning with common classifications used across the analyzed systems. Finally, these categories and subcategories were grouped under the three core dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic.

Environmental Categories: Focus on aspects like air and water pollution, waste management, energy and water resource use, material depletion, land use, site ecology, and life cycle impact.
Social Categories: Emphasize health and wellbeing, occupant comfort (thermal, acoustic, visual), building quality, outdoor environment comfort, safety and security, social interaction, and cultural landscape.
Economic Categories: Address capital, operational, and life-cycle costs, alongside other economic aspects.
Transversal Categories: Include innovation and management & operation, recognizing their impact across all sustainability pillars.

The study then examined the indicators used within each of the 11 assessment systems against the CLOSBI framework. This coverage analysis determined the extent to which each system incorporates the comprehensive set of indicators, categories, and subcategories defined by CLOSBI, revealing both the strengths and limitations of each system’s approach to measuring sustainability.

The Path Forward: Harmonizing Sustainable Building Assessments

This study shines a light on the inconsistencies and gaps within current sustainable building assessment systems. While systems like SBTool demonstrate a more comprehensive approach, many others prioritize certain aspects (like environmental impact) while neglecting crucial social and economic considerations. Addressing these imbalances and working towards a standardized, holistic framework is essential for truly driving sustainable practices in the building industry. By recognizing the limitations of existing systems, we can push for more robust and reliable methods for evaluating the true sustainability of our buildings.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What are the core dimensions of sustainability used in the analysis of green building assessment systems?

The analysis of sustainable building assessment systems, such as LEED and BREEAM, focuses on three core dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic. Environmental categories cover aspects like air and water pollution, waste management, energy and water resource use, material depletion, land use, site ecology, and life cycle impact. Social categories emphasize health and wellbeing, occupant comfort (thermal, acoustic, visual), building quality, outdoor environment comfort, safety and security, social interaction, and cultural landscape. Economic categories address capital, operational, and life-cycle costs, alongside other economic aspects. Additionally, transversal categories like innovation and management & operation are considered, impacting all three sustainability pillars.

Which green building rating systems were analyzed in the study, and what areas do they cover?

The study analyzed 11 sustainable building assessment systems from across the globe, excluding Africa due to data limitations. These systems include Green Star (Australia), DGNB (Germany), BEAM (Hong Kong), CASBEE (Japan), G-SEED (Korea), GSAS (Qatar), Green Mark (Singapore), Pearl (UAE), BREEAM (UK), LEED (USA), and SBTool (International). The areas covered within these systems include environmental, social, and economic aspects of building sustainability, as defined by the Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI).

What is the role of the Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI) in evaluating sustainable building assessment systems?

The Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI) serves as a benchmark for evaluating the comprehensiveness of different sustainable building assessment systems. It compiles 564 unique indicators, initially identified from 785, across the 11 SB assessment systems analyzed, after eliminating duplicates. These indicators are categorized into 24 categories and 61 subcategories, which are then grouped under the three core dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic. The study uses CLOSBI to assess how well each system incorporates a comprehensive set of indicators, categories, and subcategories, revealing strengths and limitations in their approach to measuring sustainability.

What are some key environmental factors assessed in sustainable building rating systems like LEED and BREEAM?

Sustainable building rating systems, such as LEED and BREEAM, assess several key environmental factors. These include air and water pollution, waste management strategies, energy and water resource use, material depletion, land use practices, site ecology considerations, and life cycle impact analyses. The Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI) is used as a benchmark to determine how thoroughly each system addresses these factors. For example, a system might score well on energy efficiency but less so on material sourcing or waste reduction, highlighting the complexities of comprehensive environmental assessment.

How do social and economic considerations influence the assessment of building sustainability in systems like Green Star and DGNB?

Social and economic considerations play a crucial role in assessing building sustainability within systems like Green Star and DGNB, although the degree of integration varies. Social factors encompass health and wellbeing, occupant comfort (thermal, acoustic, visual), building quality, outdoor environment comfort, safety and security, social interaction, and cultural landscape considerations. Economic factors involve capital, operational, and life-cycle costs. Systems are evaluated against the Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI), which helps to determine if these factors are comprehensively addressed. For instance, a system might prioritize environmental aspects but give less weight to occupant wellbeing or lifecycle costs, which can lead to a skewed assessment of true sustainability. Therefore, it's important to understand how each system balances these three pillars for a more holistic evaluation.