Enhancing the Building Rating System in Australia (Green Star) Report

Abstract

The advent of the 21^st century saw a paradigm shift in the manner in which governments, civil society, and scientists perceived global warming. This greater awareness trail blazed a situation where sustainability in almost every industry was a clarion call. In infrastructure, it was not business as usual. Economists warn of depletion of natural resources in light of an ever-growing world population and human destruction (Chandratilake and Dias, 2013).

In the recent past, there have been numerous improvements in the world’s sustainability agenda. Countries and regional bodies have set objectives to promote the reduction of Green House Gas (GHG) release as a matter of urgency. To arrive at this target, progressive building industry principles have been adopted concerning building operations, design, and performance to solidify achievements of sustainability. From this perspective, it is crucial to develop an adequate green building-rating tool in Australia that meets international environmental building standards.

While many rating agencies have developed standards for use in the construction industry, there is hardly any resemblance. Green star has an important role to play in helping Australia’s building market to internalize undesired effects on the environment and, consequently, to accomplish more sustainable infrastructures. Furthermore, the strength of the Australian economy, in comparison to the rest of the developed economies, sets favorable conditions to encourage higher levels of capital investment and sustainable development in the infrastructure sector. Other national agencies play similar roles albeit using slightly different standards. Does this mean that Green Star is inferior considering the popularity of the other comparable agencies such LEED and BREEAM? The study indicates that to be untrue and further sanitizes the act. Consequently, this work will argue that improving the standard for Green Star rating system is fundamental in order to achieve higher grades of environmental performance and speed up competitiveness in a consistently dynamic global economy.

Nomenclature

• Green building rating system: Green Star is a quality benchmark designed to grant accreditation to building projects in design and construction to enhance sustainability.
• Sustainable building: Sustainable building is a concept in that instills minimalistic environmental impacts through sustained and documented principles in the building, construction, and architectural industry.
• Green Star: Green Star is Australia has trusted standard for sustainable building and construction whose rating tools comprehensively encompass public and private institutions.
• LEED: LEED is the largest US largest green building-rating tool with slightly different approaches for Green Star but whose aims and intentions are similar.
• BREEAM: BREEAM rates and develops standards for sustainable building in United Kingdom. Similarly, it has developed rating tools that span all sorts of constructions with the aim of reducing emissions and enhancing probity in resource usage.
• Australia Green Building Council: A not for profit industry association that drives the adoption of green building practices in Australia.

Introduction

Project Definition

To be sustainable, buildings should take optimal and responsible resources from the environment in terms of and ensure durability. Sustainable development is increasingly highlighted because the buildings have a constantly increasing impact on the environment in terms of resources uptake during construction and inordinate emissions detrimental to the environment. This project analyses Green Star rating scheme; which is prepared in order to identify weaknesses (i.e. in comparison to international standards LEED and BREEAM); and to identify ways to popularize sustainable building practices in Australia through encouragement of improvement of Green Star. The weaknesses may be tackled by structural readjustments that will also be discussed.

Project Goals

1. To benchmark the rating criteria that Green Star uses in order to assess and grant accreditation in the building stock in Australia. To concentrate specifically in the comparative analysis of the major building rating tools: LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment) from the United States and United Kingdom Green Building Councils, respectively.
2. To propose course of actions in order to make a significant enhancement in Green Star rating tool. More particularly, to identify weaknesses in Green Star scheme and suggest more adequate responses.

How the Project will benefit

This project will contribute towards the betterment and enhancement of Green Star rating scheme with the aim of promoting leadership in the development of sustainable building stock in Australia. More specifically, benefits for the building industry will be in the shape of innovative design and construction. The project aims to boost Australia’s standing in OECD countries in relation to sustainable construction and environmental performance. Additionally, the project may make a stronger case to allow for smoother transition towards a demanding regulation that advocates for a low-carbon economy. At the same time, benefits for the Australia community may be economic (i.e. employment, companies bottom line, investment and economic growth) environmental (i.e. reduction on GHG emissions, energy efficiency and use of less damaging construction materials) and social (i.e. healthcare stakeholders, community development)

Project Deliverable

The project deliverable will result in a course of action for Green Star rating towards the development of environmental criteria that favor the reduction in GHG emissions, the execution of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in construction materials and higher levels in energy efficiency. At the same time, the project will deliver recommendations on Green Star rating in order to produce a more comprehensive assessment based on the consideration of a two-staged accreditation process: design review and construction review. On the other hand, improvements in the bottom line for companies under Green Star certification, via reduction in building operation costs and higher return on investment via an increase in property values and more tenant attraction.

In addition, a reduction in environmental and social impacts in the building stock sector in Australia. More specifically, community and workers will have access to healthier places to live and work.

Review of Literature

Introduction

There is a shift in all industries towards environmental friendly operations. The housing and construction industry has also been affected by this trend. People want houses that have the minimum possible negative influence on the environment. Global warming and the resultant climate change have caused consumers to be more conscious in their purchasing (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011). Companies are now forced to invest heavily in Research and Development to create innovative green housing solutions. Such innovations could reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill, increase recycling, create energy efficient homes and create renewable energy. The current industry leaders are also leaders in innovation and environmental consciousness (Portalatin, Koepe, Rostoski & Shouse, 2010). There are various certifications and awards issued annually to encourage this trend. Companies literally compete for these since it proves to consumers that they are doing something about the situation. The Code for Sustainable Homes in the UK, Australia Green Building Council in Australia among others world over, serve this purpose. Many industry players have adopted this principles based approach (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011). However, the effectiveness of the props (Green Star, LEED, and BREEAM for instance) in serving this purpose is questionable (Portalatin, Koepe, Rostoski & Shouse, 2010).

Literature Review

Garnaut (2011) indicates that the building sector contributes immensely towards Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, utilizing approximately 40% of the world’s energy and producing approximately 30% of the carbon emissions. These figures are the largest of any single industry globally as of 2011. At the same time, sustainability has become the “buzzword” of the academic and the business fields. In particular, it is possible to identify two large trends in the development of sustainable infrastructure in the last decades (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010). As noted above, the catchphrase is affecting the consumer markets in construction with consumers favouring environmentally friendly companies en masse (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011).

• The Period 1990 – 2000: the start of the 1990’s puts large emphasis in sustainable design, which was also joined, to the notion of buildings being “eco-friendly”, “environmentally friendly” and “unobtrusive”. A crucial element for building performance during this phase was founded on a “cost efficient” evaluation (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010). According to Portalatin, Koepe, Rostoski & Shouse (2010), cost effectiveness was the sole competitive arena in light of burgeoning industries world over occasioned by growth in economies. Global warming occasioned by carbon emissions were not a critical factor to governments. Only scientists were concerned (Roodman & Lenssen, 1995).
• The Period 2000 – 2010: the start of the 21st century reveals the beginning of “calculating carbon” and “measuring efficiency”. This phase has established the measurements of CO2/m2/year as common factors in environmental evaluation of buildings. The principal indicator on building performance during this phase was based on measuring carbon emissions (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010). Governments had also joined the clamour for suitable construction through legislations especially in the developed world. Credible research had also indicated a trend where massive chunks of the housing market appreciated sustainable solutions, as global warming became a possibility. The world resources were on the verge of depletion in light of burgeoning populations (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011).

The sustainability phenomenon has resulted in an abundance of green building rating tools and frameworks around the world to evaluate property development against a collection of “sustainability criteria”. Green Building Councils are members of the World Green Building Council; and on its respective country are conformed by partnerships between government and private organisations that have worked in collaboration to develop Green Building rating tools. Internationally the most widely recognised rating system includes LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, CASBEE, SICES and EEWH. The sustainable building industry is shaped by the influence of the mentioned rating tools, which are mainly endorse and applicable through diverse Green Buildings Councils around the globe. Which are, LEED in the US Green Building Council (USGBC), Canada Green Building Council, Brazil Green Building Council, India Green Building Council; CASBEE in Japan; BREEAM in the UK Green Building Council; SICES in Mexico Green Building Council; EEWH in Taiwan Green Building Council and Green Star in the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), Green Building Council of New Zealand (NZGBC) and in the Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA). Although, there are many others international building tools available, the three larger rating systems in the world are LEED, BREEAM and Green Star.

Research by Dirlich (2011) demonstrates substantial disparity in terms of the global methodology (i.e. LEED, BREEAM and Green Star) to be applied in order to evaluate sustainability criteria in the building sector. This project further progresses the demonstration in subsequent sections as clear and arguably critical reasons emerge to support these differences. This discrepancy can be explained by several factors; perhaps one of the most influential is the fact that each of the rating systems was conceived and adapted to a specific geographical context that regards unique characteristics in terms of environmental conditions, politics and legislation, industry sector and socio-economic structures. For instance, BREEAM methodology is tailored, and therefore, better applied and representative when assessing the sustainability performance of the building industry in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world (Dirlich, 2011). Adaptation of a generic rating may also contribute to apathy in governments and demographics that are yet to ingratiate sustainability solutions. The concept, aims, and noble causes of the whole sustainability endeavour ought to be communicated world over, but development of systems upon which to implement it left to specific geographic areas notes Dirlich (2011). However, certain platforms or benchmarks may highlight the crust upon which to develop.

Furthermore, the topics for building assessment vary according to different weightings and categories. LEED 2009 grants an overall score of 110 points with a weighting system that considers 23.6% to sustainable sites, 9.1% to water efficiency, 31.9% to energy and atmosphere, 12.7% to material and resources, 13.6% to indoor environmental quality, 5.5% to innovation and design, and 3.6% to regional priority. The overall score for BREEAM 2011 goes up to 110% and its weighting system considers: 10% to land use and ecology, 6% to water, 19% to energy, 12.5% to materials, 15% to health and wellbeing, 8% to transport, 7.5% to waste, 10% to pollution, 12% to management and 10% to innovation. The overall score for Green Star 2013 is 100 points and its weighting system considers management, indoor environment quality, energy, transport, water, materials, innovation, emissions, and land use and ecology. These building weighting aspects are not fixed like LEED and BREEAM, as they change according to states and territories in order to consider diverse environmental priorities across Australia. For example, potable water has a high relevance in South Australia than the Northern Territories, and consequently the water category has a higher weighting in South Australia.

Therefore, it can be argue that a customized building rating system will be more representative and meaningful in addressing the specific context and particular requirements of the building sector in a determined country, state or territory. However, on doing this, drawback effects appear as international comparison becomes more difficult because multiple rating tools are built upon different categories and weightings. According Dixon et al. (2008), the proliferation of rating tools around the globe has created market distortions that prevent stakeholders and property investors from having a clear understanding on the implications of different sustainability methodologies. In this regard, Reed et al. (2009) point out that while it is established that states and territories possess unique characteristics, the objective of reaching a global rating tool can be achieved in a similar way. According to him, financial methodology works for analysing property values in different countries: by using a twelve-year discounted cash flow technique that considers exchange rates fluctuations, it is possible to contrast the value of an office building in Berlin directly, London, New York City, or Melbourne. In other words, a straightforward approach that relies on developing a global rating system will deliver important benefits that will facilitate the access to transparent information in the form of sustainability features and building assessment around different countries. The underpinning reasons behind not having a global rating system can be attributed to lack of knowledge and willingness to compromise towards a single rating tool since it may not be the possible best tool applicable to a wide range of states and territories. Additionally, a global rating system would not necessarily be a good solution. It is instructive to note that customization of a rating system to geographical locations, purpose of the building, legislations, cultural inclinations and resource availability is trendier than a blanket system. For example, Australia and Britain’s resource endowment may posit a situation where Australia does not need strict rating systems as opposed to Britain. Hence, a generalist rating system will critically disadvantage Australians.

Many developing countries have not adopted rating systems. In Africa, over 90% of the countries do not have a national rating system for construction. Going forward, as more countries embrace the need for sustainability, it will be hard to roll out a uniform Rating System considering the richness of culture in the continent. Such countries will have to grapple with a nationally developed system that will specifically cater to the cultures of its citizens. Otherwise, as noted by Olgyay & Seruto (2010) sharp divisions may emerge between governments, locals and human rights organizations, which may not serve the intended noble cause.

In an attempt to attain sustainability in building, the steps have been categorized into the first, second, and the third wave. The first wave is a reference to a group of companies that were opposed to the notion of sustainability. Birkeland (2012) provides the highly effective perspective on the natural environment and the employees. The culture of exploitation was synonymous with the first wave organizations and this was largely to blame for the failure to achieve sustainability during the time. Organizations in this era were opposed to green activists and the government’s attempts to bring about policies that would cater for sustainability in building (Olgyay & Seruto, 2010). The community was distanced from the sustainability debate with its claims being labelled by the organizations as illegitimate; this development reveals the less regard the organizations of the first wave gave to the community and the environment (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010).

According to Shove (1998), organizations in the first wave were characterized by ignorance in the form of non-responsiveness. This greatly hindered and dissatisfied any attempts to achieve sustainability in building. Primacy was given to technological and financial factors with less regard being reserved for environmental factors. Ignorance came in a higher degree as the workforce was condemned to be compliant of decisions made and business was conducted as usual. In the light of this, organizations during the first wave regarded environmental resources as free goods requiring little attention (Green Building Council Australia, 2012).

Shove(1998), reveals that the motivation to move to the second wave stemmed from the perceived need for organizations to be compliant to legal, environmental, safety, and health requirements and the numerous expectations of the community. Business opportunities during the second wave aimed at avoiding the huge costs of failing to comply with the stipulated standards. Moreover, there was the increased need to create an efficient system to mitigate risk. The objectives of the organizations in the second wave were to eliminate waste progressively and increase efficiency in materials and processes. The second wave was synonymous with increased attempts for reorganization and waste reduction (Harmelink et al., 2006). Three paths catered for efficiency in this era. These were; cost reduction, improving quality through value addition, and flexibility and innovation through the advantage of the first mover (Gann, 2000). An example of efficiency attained in the second wave was eco-efficiency, a concept that converged at the use of fewer resources to attain more. This was attained through the delivery of goods that were competitively priced and services meant to satisfy the numerous human needs and foster equality in living standards (Hawkes, 1993). All these developments were achieved by reduction of ecological impact and the intensity of the resources throughout the life cycle to a level that was in line with the carrying capacity of the earth. Core eco-efficiency principles fostering efficiency in building sustainability during the second wave were reduction of material intensity, minimization of energy intensity, reduction in the dispersion of harmful substances, recycling, capitalizing on renewable resources, extension of product durability, and increased service intensity (R.S. MEANS, 2011). Countries’ resource endowments are critical too. For instance, land bank (refers to the amount of land a company has that is available for construction) represents capacity to expand. Land is also an asset, which appreciates. The more land in the land bank, the higher the value of this asset (Hawkes, 1993). Certain cities, municipalities, countries and regions face an acute shortage of this commodity. While the noble cause for sustainable solutions in construction applies to all, it would be direr to apply it in such departments (Jaraminiene, Bieksa, & Valuntiene, 2012). These places also experience exponential growths in populations, which multiplies this need. Examples include China, India, Indonesia, large parts of Asia and Japan. The world’s receding coastlines will have dire consequences as regards this asset. Hence, it is impractical to universally apply rating systems because the parameters (management, indoor environment quality, energy, transport, water, materials, innovation, emissions, land use, ecology etc) are not universal (Jaraminiene, Bieksa, & Valuntiene, 2012).

As opposed to the first and the second wave, the third wave was synonymous with numerous achievements in building sustainability. The companies in this era went ‘green’. The need for understanding the motives behind ecological responsiveness in the corporate domain is for a number of reasons (Bell, 2000). First, such an understanding is vital in helping organizational theorists to predict behaviours related to ecology. For example, if the corporations adopted practices that were ecologically responsive with the view of meeting legal requirements, the firms would engage in activities that would be in line with the legislation (Jaraminiene, Bieksa, & Valuntiene, 2012). Second, the understanding would expose mechanisms that would foster organizations with ecological sustainability. Such an attribute would allow managers, researchers, and policy makers to assess control mechanisms and command efficacy, voluntary measures, and market measures (Roodman, & Lenssen, 1995).

More closely related to the building development sector, in the last two decades there has been a significant evolution in the way rating tool methodologies assess the building sector. In the beginning of the 1990’s, the first rating tools techniques were developed (i.e. BREEAM) with a main focus in design stage, whereas the actual construction was not so important (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013). At the start of the 21^st century, this trend has gone in reverse, where most Rating Tool methodologies show significantly increased concern in the actual construction and a less focus in merely building design (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013). At the same time, since 2006 a new trend in green building rating has risen, where the focus is now on the form of sustainable performance. This recent performance trend has expanded the implications of sustainable buildings, in an attempt to establish as a common practice for the infrastructure sector the measurement, through international audit and standards, of the levels of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, energy and water footprint. As the orientation in direction to the construction stage and sustainable performance expands in time, the rating tools methodologies will accommodate accordingly, shifting increasing categories and weighting from building design perspective to building performance. Hence, this will have a powerful effect on the future configuration of the building sector.

In addition, one important issue that also has a significant impact over the lack on global consensus on “sustainable buildings” is that the world most accepted technology rapidly becomes the benchmark and, consequently, there is no much space to include new breakthroughs. In this direction Cur well and Cooper (1998) point out that because the notion of sustainable development is continuously evolving (i.e. in terms of conceptualization, implementation and monitoring) whereas building standards remain within their respective sustainability frameworks, there is an essential constraint to reach global agreement. At the same time, Dovers (2002), Godfaurd (2005), and Kibert (2003) sustain that this quest for global agreement is disregarding insightful knowledge that could be put in practice in the sustainability field. The global impact of technology cannot be underrated. Countries capable of successfully measuring CO2 emissions per square metre of a building effectively and successfully must have a certain level of technology penetration. As Godfaurd (2005) notes some countries, do not have structures to indentify households effectively. Additionally, there exists no regulation to monitor construction of houses. Implementing a rating system that heavily depends on these factors is a monumental task.

Research in Current Solutions

Sustainability rating methodology varies considerably, from one tool rating system one to another. Measurement of building performance, scope and environmental criteria within the infrastructure sector are some of the factors that distinguish some of the most accepted and common global rating systems in the current sustainable building industry (i.e. LEED in United States, BREEAM in Britain and Green Star in Australia). The three rating systems are similar in aims, approach and structure to rate the performance of the building sector and create according grade levels for accreditation (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013).

BREEAM is a rating tool introduced in the United Kingdom in 1990 has an extended record of accomplishment that is mainly applied in the UK. The system applies in a number of building infrastructures such as retail, schools, industrial offices and homes. The BREEAM scheme buildings score awards a “Pass”, “Good”, “Very Good” and “Excellent” rating based on the general score (Fowler and Rauch, 2006).

While taking into account all areas in the building industry and not just the simple mandate of cutting down on carbon emissions, BREEAM seeks to provide a sustainability strategy adaptable world over but specific to Britain problems and settings (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013). The principal criterions for sustainable design and construction under BREEAM include management, health and wellbeing, energy, transport, water, materials, land use, ecology and pollution. BREEAM offers a comprehensive approach whose goal is to minimize environmental impacts in the different stages of construction and building operations. Hence, there are multiple environmental and economic benefits on adopting the BREEAM system in the building industry such as: access to lower energy requirements and building operational costs, higher property rent value, enhancement in productivity levels due to workers access to a comfortable working environment, improved reputation for the building industry that commits to environmental protection, shorter selling times in buildings, and other publicity benefits.

Although there is an extensive record in the Building sector that is achieving high levels of accreditation in the BREEAM rating systems as their core sustainability strategy, the implications of the rating tool are not considered by U.S. design professionals (Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson, & Schulte, 2009). Perhaps, the major constrain in the BREEAM rating system is that in spite of its contribution towards sustainable design and construction, it is not as widespread as LEED, and only selected as the favourite rating system by the building industry within the boundaries of the UK. However, its application and success in UK and it is not so stellar success outside UK highlights the possibility of success of nationalist approaches to sustainability.

Further leading credence to geographically specific sustainability solutions is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). LEED is a system-rating tool that was created by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and is more globally recognized as a reference for sustainable building practices. Furthermore, not only in the United States but also in a multiple number of different countries around the world, LEED accreditation is the most commonly accepted standard for assessing building sustainability performance (Lee, & Burnett, 2007). The system forms the platform on which countries that have not adopted sustainability base their rating systems on adoption.

The LEED green rating system is administered by the U.S. Green Building Council. Its aim is to promote design and construction practices that increase profitability. It also reduces the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being.

LEED employs a more subtle approach and is somewhat generic. However, it has progressive nuggets that differentiate it from the rest. The most remarkable economic incentives granted by LEED are among the following: 8% to 9% decrease in building operating expenses, 7.5% increase in property values, 6.6% improvement in return over investment, 3.5% augment in tenancy, 3% rent increase. The construction cost is also an important advantage because the large majority of buildings are capable to achieve LEED certification without requiring additional funding. Some do need extra funding, but only for specific features, such as photovoltaic. In addition, comparative costs advantage in adopting LEED rating systems are given where LEED buildings are globally recognized, hence enjoy a greater reputation, and incurred on a similar cost (i.e. cost per square meter) than what it takes to adopt alternative building system rating methodologies.

LEED building rating scheme has four certification categories for buildings. They include Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The grade of accreditation depends on the score achieved in five fields of assessment: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality (Lee, & Burnett, 2007).

In particular, the evolution towards the implementation of Green Star rating system in Australia can be regarded because of the escalating pressure of environmental legislation. In this manner, Fisher (2001) points out that there has been a great response coming from several infrastructure developers in Australia to seek Green Star accreditation for their recent constructions. The fact is that over 4 million m2 have turned into Green Star certified space around Australia.

However, two environmental rating frameworks are present in the building sector of Australia: NABERS (i.e. National Build Rating) and Green Star scheme from the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Each of these rating schemes aims to evaluate several parameters in order to reward with a number of stars. The amount of stars awarded is different in the two schemes, with NABERS giving up to 5 stars and Green Star up to 6 stars. NABERS has an environmental criterion in energy. It was previously known as the Australian Building Greenhouse Rating. On the other hand, the environmental standards under Green Star include management, indoor environmental quality, energy policies, transport orientation, materials use, land use and ecological orientation, and emissions.

Table 1: Comparison Table by Category Weighting. (Source: BRE 2008)

Although the council methodology of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) varies considerably, their rating systems do allocate a number of resemblances. For instance, both rating systems have minimum eligibility criteria and demand certain prerequisites for certification, both have taken an approach of collecting up credits under a type of category and both institutions have credentials in place to promote the active participation of certified experts in their respective rating systems.

According to Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson, and Schulte (2009) by doing a benchmark analysis on the different categories and weightings parameters for the rating tools LEED, BREEAM and Green Star, the methodologies can be directly comparable. Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson, and Schulte (2009) reach some important conclusions, by analysing different aspects on the rating tools.

LEED and BREEAM also reach a higher standard than Green Star in terms of energy efficiency. This is because LEED and BREEAM schemes take into account a larger number of parameters for assessing the building performance based on two comparable building models (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013). On the contrary, the Green Star ratings system predicts building performance from one single building model. The model has fewer parameters for assessment. Therefore, Green Star is not as effective in the evaluation of energy efficiency rating scores. BREEAM performs better in building management when compared to LEED and Green Star.

Again, in comparison to the other scheme methodologies, Green Star falls behind in the category of Pollution. However, since water scarcity is an important sustainability issue in Australia, the water preservation standards of Green Star are consistently higher than LEED and BREEAM. In regards to land use and ecology BREEAM appears to be setting the greatest emphasis, which is coherent to the current infrastructure scenario in the UK that presents high levels of density population. To some extent, this analysis shows how the major rating tools LEED and BREEAM are better adapted than Green Star to asses sustainable performance in the building sector in terms of energy and emissions, and consequently, offer a better response to this local sustainability issues where the respective frameworks were initially originated.

Another important difference between these three major rating tools (i.e. LEED, BREEAM and Green Star) can be found in terms of category weightings (referenced in Figure 1). This rating methodology gap, based on Green Star categories, is displayed in the figure 1, where the identified areas of contrast that resemble most significant differences, between Green Star and the alternative LEED and BREEAM are: water, materials, emissions/pollution and land use and ecology.

In addition, since the LEED rating system is applied in multiple building projects around the planet, it can be argue that this methodology is more adjustable to a broad range of scenarios. For instance, assessing an airport), whereas Green Star requires the development of a custom rating system for project types not covered by their current tools (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013).

Undoubtedly, there are gradual and significant differences between LEED and Green Star system ratings. For instance, LEED applies an environmentally friendly method (i.e. online system) to submit records and documentation, whereas Green Star initiative for submission is through paper and CD. The submission stage is a long process that can involve thousands of pages of documentation. However, the greatest discrepancy can be found in the technique in which the buildings industry gets accreditation. In LEED, the procedure for accreditation is two staged: design review and construction review. The building projects can obtain expected score at the end of the design stage but will only be given certification at the end of the construction stage. LEED approach secures the execution of the initiatives acknowledged in the design stage. However, in comparison to LEED, Green Star rating system has a “loop hole” in this situation, since it is feasible to obtain accreditation at the stage of design, and then execute the project in an entirely different manner. In an attempt to solve this issue, Green Star now offers a number of ‘As-Built’ ratings (to assess the consistency of the design stage during building implementation). In addition, the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) is also commanding a time limitation on the promotion of design certification.

However, as it is illustrated in the Table 2: Green Star Certified Office Buildings, the introduction of “As Built” ratings is not sufficient to secure sustainable building practices. This premise is applicable for all states and territories except for South Australia, where out of ten design-certified office buildings four office buildings have passed through “As Built” certification such as 40 per cent rate (Green Building Council Australia, 2012). However, for the states and territories of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia the situation is more shocking since once that design accreditation has been granted a much smaller proportion (i.e. 5 per cent) of Green Star certified office buildings opt for accreditation at the construction stage (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013).

Table 2: Green Star Certified Office Buildings. Source: Warren, C. M. “Who needs a Green Star?” (2009) UQ Business School

On the other hand, carbon emissions from building are projected to grow over the next 25 years by an annual rate of over 1% (Garnaut, 2011). The contribution of building to the increase of carbon emissions when combined with other sources of carbon emissions such as industry and transportation result in an even higher rate of carbon emission (United Nation Environmental Program, 2009).

The great concern over carbon in the atmosphere is the characteristic of carbon in the form carbon dioxide to trap heat within the atmosphere leading the phenomena known as global warming. Increased temperature in the atmosphere will result to an increased rate of ice melting at the poles, stronger cyclones, and tornadoes, the faster spread of deserts and ultimately increased emissions as building attempt to maintain a conducive environment for working and living within the building environment. The most significant factor that contributes to the high rate of carbon emissions in buildings is the consumption of electricity (Dunphy, Griffiths, & Benn, 2007).

When other attributes of a building are considered, the result is an even higher carbon emission. Buildings have a life span of 50 to 100 years and through this period; the building emits carbon to the atmosphere. It is estimated that if new commercial buildings were built to consume 50% less energy 6 million tons of carbon dioxide would be reduced from the high contribution of buildings (Better Buildings Partnership 2010). To get a good impression of this, it can be equated to removing 1 million cars from the road annually. Without the considerations of the building environmental performance, and seeking out ways to improve this performance building will be a great contributor to the increasing carbon emissions (Ramanathan, & Carmichael, 2008).

Building more environmentally friendly building is referred to as building green. Building green not only reduces the carbon emissions of the building but also results in savings and the general improvement of the bottom line. Some of the ways that a building can be made more efficient include using the most efficient electronics in the building construction to improve performance. Some of these systems including the building heating and cooling systems, another is taking advantage of the daylight to reduce the need for lighting. The primary ways in which the building meets the minimal carbon footprint emissions is through ecologically responsive design and improved energy competence (Jaraminiene, Bieksa, & Valuntiene, 2012).

The general argument in favour of more energy competent buildings is that greener building is cheaper to run and provide a better environment for the occupants. In Australia, electricity accounts for 89% of the total carbon emissions. Electricity in Australia is produced from brown coal, which is found in abundance in the country. A change from this to using gas as a source of electricity would greatly reduce the carbon emissions. This is however not likely to occur considering the social-political conditions. The current efforts focus on the performance of the building and how specific it utilizes energy. The consensus is that the improvement in the thermal, day lighting and natural ventilation of a building would significantly improve the energy efficiency of the building and thus the carbon footprint (Taylor, 2010).

Governments in developed nations have started programs that are geared towards increasing the energy efficiency of existing building and those being built. In order to achieve the best possible standard a comparison of these programs must be done to determine the area each encompasses. Recent research has shown that the Australian program green star is significantly behind those of other developed nations such as the United States and United Kingdom (Agreening, Greene, & Difiglio, 2000). The research however does not specify the sectors in which the program lags behind and how best this challenge can be tackled. Consequently, this research seeks to fill this gap in knowledge (Roodman, & Lenssen, 1995).

Lighting, air conditioning and ventilation account for 84% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Heating the building takes the largest share of energy but whoever is the lowest production of carbon. This position is reserved for cooling which account for 13% (Roodman, & Lenssen, 1995). A focus on commercial buildings reveals that buildings are used for a number of purposes including commercial, office, recreation and communication. Office buildings are the single largest contributor to the carbon emissions of the building and it is in this section that considerable efforts need to be put (United Nation Environmental Program, 2009). In order to make a substantial impact and reduce the production of carbon building for his purpose need to be built in a more environmentally friendly manner. The focus of the regulating programs is to reduce the energy consumption of the building and the effect is the reduction of carbon emission.

According to Bansal, & Roth (2000), carbon emissions from buildings has been a major source of concern because of increased estimates of energy consumption and carbon emissions by various types of buildings. Reports on this matter have led to increased knowledge of emission of Green House Gases from buildings in the quest to come up with better levels of building sustainability. Pout et al. (2002) mentioned that in year 2000, CO2 emissions from the use of energy in commercial buildings accounted for a quarter of all UK emissions. This emission included industrial energy use by public sector and commercial buildings. Lighting accounts for a quarter of these emissions (Olgyay, & Seruto, 2010). Space cooling translates to about 5% of commercial and public emissions. Nevertheless, in buildings where there is installation of air conditioning, cooling can account for a large portion of carbon emissions and the use of air conditioning has increased in the recent past (Barnea, Heinkel, & Kraus, 2005).

Abatement curves for cost indicate contributions made at national levels with an option that is efficient in terms of energy. Moreover, saving cost to be realized after implementation is also indicated. This form of assessment reveals technical potential of saving carbon in commercial and public buildings across a number of countries. Concisely, this technical potential lies at around 35% although 20% more can be achieved devoid of cost increments. According to UN AGECC (2010), there was a decrease of carbon emissions by 45% during the period between 2000 and 2010. Analogously, there was a 14% increase in consumption of energy.

Research on International Green Building Rating Systems: USA, UK, UAE

The Green Star rating system for building was formulated by the GBCA, the building council in Australia. This rating system is comprehensive in evaluating the environmental performance and design of Australia buildings based on a variety of categories. The categories in the tools for Green Star rating are; management, energy, transport, indoor environmental quality, water, materials, ecology and land use, and emissions (Pout, MacKenzie, & Bettle, 2002)

The rating tool in UAE includes a number of systems for rating building sustainability in the global marketplace. Estidama Pearl Rating is a rating system is primarily adopted in assessing building sustainability in the UAE. The UAE has also adopted the use of other building sustainability Rating Systems such as LEED developed in the United States, and BREAM, established in the United Kingdom (Lee, & Burnett, 2007).

The Estidama rating tool is split into seven categories, vital for sustainable development. These categories include a development process that is integrated. Such a development process aims at encouraging teamwork across all disciplines with the aim of delivering solutions that are environmentally sustainable for the established environment. In addition, the Estidama rating tools incorporate natural systems that conserve restore, and preserve, critical habitats and natural environments (Kibert, 2003). Third, Precious Water is a concept that caters for reduction of water demand while supporting usage of substitute water sources. The concept of Liveable Buildings in the Estidama Rating tool ensures that there are quality indoor and outdoor spaces. Further, there exists the Resourceful energy concept that promotes the conservation of energy via measures of passive design, renewable and energy efficiency (Dixon, Colantonio, Shiers, Reed, Wilkinson, & Gallimore, 2008). Stewarding Materials in the Estidama rating tool is important in catering for the reduction of the impact of extraction of building materials. It also caters for the manufacture, transportation and the disposal of building materials. Through Innovative Practice, the Estidama rating tool encourages cultural expression and innovation in design building and construction in order to facilitate industrial and market transformation (Fowler, & Rauch, 2006).

Methodology

Standard: Green Star, LEED and BREEAM

To arrive at better a better Green Star rating approach, this study will employ the use case studies that have undergone ratings from the three leading agencies. The benchmark analysis between the principal rating tools: LEED, BREEAM and Green Star will lead to unlocking of the loopholes in Green Star. The study will incorporate the use of 4 case studies to help identify the categories and weightings where Green Star rating is falling behind in regards to the other two mentioned schemes.

The study will also look at the structure of ratings at Green Star with a critical view where weaknesses will be indentified. The researcher will use expert opinions to come up with solutions to these weaknesses. The analysis will help in improving the rating agency’s performance in the market. For example, currently, the materials category under Green Star is based on specific environmental criteria that encourage the use of recycled and re-used objects. Green star additionally concentrate too much on a vast range of material used in the building sector, such as timber, steel, PVC and concrete. However, Green Star is deficient in not requiring a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to measure the environmental performance of such materials.

Analyzing Case studies and Discussions

Case Studies

The case studies below will invariably highlight the fundamental differences that will inform future improvements of Green Star in an effort to play catch with world leaders LEED and BREEAM. While the researcher realizes the inconclusive nature of case studies, they bring about the specificity of application of rating systems while denigrating (though to a certain extent) generic applications of the rating systems. The case studies will be analysed on a case-by-case basis drawing conclusions from all the three major rating systems with regard to improvement insights of Green Star.

Case Study 1: Pixel Building

Pixel’s project objective was “to design and construct the world’s first carbon neutral and water balanced office building with regard to both operational and carbon emissions” (Sustainability Victoria, 2012). Pixel was the first building in the world to undergo certification in all the three leading rating systems: Green Star, LEED, and BREEAM. Pixel building is a perfect example on how an ideal score in Green Star may not be reflected in BREEAM and LEED. The magnificently sustainable infrastructure was built in Melbourne with the ambitious goal to score every point in the three Green Rating Systems. In Green Star, the building scored a perfect 105, but in so far it has only scored a 99.4% out of 110% in BREAM and 103 out of 110 in LEED. The main difference in the score of Pixel building is that Green Star favours the score of infrastructure within Australia. More importantly, many of the things they did to earn credits are not very good solutions at all, so it definitely revealed many flaws with Green Star. Therefore, Pixel Building paints a picture of a need for improving Green Star. On the other hand, does it need improving? It is crucial to note the specific nature of Green Star concerning an Australian setting hence the perfect score.

Analysis/Discussions

In terms of sustainable materials intended to minimise carbon emissions, the strategies included:

1. Using the “Pixelcrete” concrete, which has been shown to halve the embodied carbon of the mix when compared with traditional 40 MPA concrete mix designs. The pixelcrete concrete is used as a substitute for the normal concrete mix-design as it contains less impact on environment containing 60% less cement and achieves the same strength as the traditional concrete.
2. Using unique external shading material to minimise solar thermal loads by cutting or bouncing off harmful emissions that eat away the ozone layer,
3. That ensures minimal carbon emission from gas usage in the building for heating purpose. Additionally, using a gas fired absorption chiller that employs ammonia refrigerant, as it has no ozone depleting potential or any possibility of legionella. This is different than the traditional chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) which has a negative impact on ozone layer and upper atmosphere, and
4. Designing renewable energy systems into the building, consisting of fixed and tracking photovoltaic and wind turbines on the roof, in addition to a small amount of biogas produced from an anaerobic digester connected to the vacuum toilet black water system (Sustainability Victoria, 2012).

The above areas mostly fall under Green Star Energy, Emissions, and Materials categories. Green Star has 9 distinct categories. Whereas all categories earn individual credits, which are in turn used as a weighing factor in arriving at the final score, Pixel Building’s score does not reflect that. It is not logical to ascertain the manner in which Pixel Building earned a perfect score of 105 (i.e. a world leader in sustainability). Hence, it would be easier to view other Rating Systems that did not award perfect scores more favourably than Green Star. Green Star used office V3 rating tool, which does not recognize such aspects of sustainability such as solar usage, which further dents the perfect score. Pixel is an example of how a perfect score in Green Star may not be reflected in BREEAM and LEED. Pixel is an infrastructure that was built in Melbourne with the ambitious goal to score every point in the green rating systems. In Green Star this building score a perfect 105, but under BREEAM has only scored a 99.4% out of 110% and in LEED 103 out of 110 points.

Case Study 2: VS1

The building has also obtained accreditation in the three rating systems Green Star, LEED and BREEAM. Sprawled on a 35 thousand square meter, VS1 is a new office building that is based in Adelaide. The local conditions in Adelaide afford this building high efficiency in usage of water and energy.

The VS1 building in Victoria Square “has a strong focus on water conservation and energy reduction and is expected to achieve a reduction of approximately 70% in portable mains water consumption, and a reduction of approximately 50% in green gas emissions and energy costs compared to a typical office building” (Green Building Council of Australia).

Figure 2: VS1 Building -Points achieved (based on 100 total) highlights the score obtained by this building in the three major building rating tools. In this case, VS1 has obtained a higher score in Green Star than in other two rating schemes. LEED rating system has been particularly hard on VS1 mainly because of the difficulty to get score in the construction materials category and because LEED regards highly the use of renewable green energy. The BREEAM score does not vary as much with Green Star though it higher in the ecology criterion.

Analysis/Discussions

In terms of sustainable strategies intended to minimise carbon emissions, the strategies included:

1. Using low Volatile Organic Component (VOC) off-gassing carpets, paints, sealants and adhesives. While VOC is included in many materials of construction, using Low VOC building material and furnishing can reduce the emission of smog-forming in a very dramatically way. It can also minimise the occurrence of irritations that related to humans such as headache and eye irritations (Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson & Schulte, 2009).
2. Using low formaldehyde off-gassing joinery,
3. Monitored recycling of over 90% of construction and demolition waste,
4. Using non-poly vinyl chloride (PVC) piping, conduits, sub-mains, flooring and blinds. The PVC is a third most common used plastic due to its effectiveness in construction and building materials. However the density of plastic that PVC has is higher than any other plastic, therefore it was not used in this building as it leads to higher carbon emissions a measure that reduces a rating score,
5. Replacing 20% of Portland cement in concrete with fly ash. Portland cement is high carbons contain products which omits carbon during the hydration process when used in concrete or mortar. On the other hand if fly ash, which is a waste material, generated after coal-burning process is used it reduces the amount of carbon during the hydration process as International Energy Agency (2012) finds.
6. Using a highly specified and sensitive western veil in front of the building skin to minimise solar loads. This veil controls the amount of sunlight that enters the building can be adjusted according to the human requirements.
7. Using ETFE roof over full height central atrium to facilitate natural light into the heart of the building. ETFE is a polymer and its source-based name is poly (ethene-co-tetrafluoroethene), and its film is self-cleaning (due to its non-stick surface) and recyclable.
8. Using exhaust riser for printer and photocopy rooms that improves the indoor air quality. This is part of a wider solution to tackling carbon emissions and their effect,
9. Employing humidity sensors in supply air ducts to control humidity and minimise potential for mould growth that are detrimental to lifelong durability. Durability is a factor in suitability as it caters to resource usage optimization (Green Building Council Australian, 2013).

The above points reflect that Green Star may have exhausted all categories in arriving at the score. Most notably was Energy (ETFE and Water Energy) and Materials (cement, PVC, veil). The six star score however, is above the two other ratings LEED and BREEAM because Green Star is somewhat favourable. For future growth, Green Star should come up with stricter rating tools such Multi Unit Residential V1. In this regard, this work states that the main two main desired features to be improved in Green Star rating are in the materials and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions/pollution categories. This way sustainability will reach new heights.

VS1 achieved a higher score in Green Star than in the other two rating schemes. LEED rating system has been particularly hard on VS1 mainly because of the difficulty to get score in the construction materials category and because LEED regards highly the use of renewable green energy.

Case Study 3: 55 St Andrews Place

The 55 St Andrews Place is a refurbished building in Melbourne CBD with a construction area of 6 thousand square meters and granted the BSJ award for sustainable refurbishment of the year 2007. The building intended to merely achieve high levels of sustainable design be it from whichever rating system. This building has also taken certification from Green Star, BREEAM and LEED. Figure 3: 55 St Andrews Place Building -Points achieved (based on 100 total) presents the findings of the rating agencies. In this case, the highest score for this building was achieved under BREEAM, this is mainly because this rating scheme rewards improving existing building infrastructure more than LEED and Green Star and because it gives more points for energy improvement. However, the intention for suitability is achieved.

In terms of sustainable materials intended to minimise carbon emissions, the strategies used by the project designers and developers included:

1. Replacing punched window glazing with clear glass to enhance daylight potential, improve comfort and reduce air conditioning needs.
2. Installing external automated blinds to control solar load before it enters the building.
3. Replacing the large expanse of full height tinted glazing in the office area with an insulated 1.2m high spandrel panel and new low-e glass to improve comfort and increased daylight levels.
4. Reducing construction waste by reusing as many materials as possible.
5. Avoiding PVC and other materials that are known to have substantial off gassing (Clark, 2009).

In the above case, Green star performs better at rating. It was the first rating that Green Star carried out without TCs and CRIs getting involved. The procedural hurdle that crops up when different ratings are arrived at from similar submissions was eliminated. Similar approach should be employed in future. In similar breadth, it is notable to see that LEED and BREEAM gave higher ratings than Green Star on this one. The 55 St Andrews Place achieved a higher score under BREEAM than in the other two rating schemes. This result is mainly explained because BREEAM rating scheme rewards improving existing building infrastructure more than LEED and Green Star and because it gives more points for energy improvement.

Case Study 4: The Cundall Office

The 400 square meter fit-out project Cundall office, based in Sydney has had the certification of LEED, BREEAM and Green Star. The results can be better appreciated in Figure 4: The Cundall Sydney office (fit-out) – Points achieved (based on a 100 total). It is crucial to note that discrepancies in the scores. The reason is that in this particular case the methodology of the rating tool systems varies significantly due to the nature of the project (i.e. fit out). Hence, the rating agencies carry out the building assessment is done in an entirely different manner. Furthermore, the assessment changes significantly for fit-out furniture. While Green star appraises furniture piece by piece, LEED adds up all the furniture together and BREEAM does not evaluate. This explicably leads to discrepancy. One factor that also explains the considerable disparity in rating building scores is that BREEAM and Green Star are mainly focused on tenancies with formal contracts. LEED does not put too much emphasis on that factor. However, these discrepancies inform the reader of the specific nature of each rating agency.

This was a poor score from Green Star. One of the main issues under Green Star that needs to be corrected for achieving a more sustainable building stock in Australia is the fact that most Green Star accreditation occurs under the design stage. This accreditation has the potential effect to tempt developers to execute the project in an entirely different manner. To deal with this issue, Green Star has a number of ‘As-Built’ ratings, which are not necessarily attached to obtaining an overall Green Star rating. The above case highlights this well. It is the main reason that the project received a lower rating.

The Cundall Sydney office achieved a higher score under LEED rating system. In this particular case, the nature of the building project (i.e. fit out), results in the building score been granted in an entirely different manner. The reason is that case studies vary in the nature of the property project (i.e. new construction, refurbished, fit –out) without a doubt the nature of the project plays a significant role in the score granted by the LEED, BREEAM and Green Star rating systems. Therefore, domestic and industrial construction development face different methodologies for green accreditation and this creates further difficulties for comparison purposes around international rating tools.

Assumption Testing and Results

The overall environmental approach by Green Star rating system is not is as strong as LEED and BREEAM in regards to the assessment of design, actual and performance of sustainable building in Australia. The Australian building projects that have obtained accreditation in LEED, BREEAM and Green Star ratings arrives at the following tests for results.

Assumption 1 validated by the following tests and results:

Benchmark analysis between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star tool Rating Systems.

• The case study analyses above reveal notable discrepancies between Green Star, LEED, and BREEAM in awarding rating scores. The discrepancy are in favour of the client when Green Star rates. The results indicate that Green Star categories and credit point allocations somehow collide.
• BREEAM building management credentials are top notch compared to the other rating systems LEED and Green Star.
• Green Star falls behind in the category of Green House Gas (GHG) emission and pollution category. Therefore, Green Star rating is inefficient in measuring and controlling Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and pollution levels in the building stock.
• Different approaches in credit point allocations between LEED and Green star are apparent. LEED approach concentrates on Design and construction stages. A review of the initiatives at the design stage may lead to award of certification from LEED although this waits until construction is complete. However, accreditation does not happen after construction in Green Star it happens at the design stage. This loophole allows clients to obtain accreditation and execute differently which dents Green Star’s credibility.
• Currently, the materials category under Green Star is based on specific environmental criteria that encourage the use of recycled and re-used objects. However, Green Star is deficient in not requiring a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to measure the environmental performance of such materials. LCA evaluation is currently included by BREEAM in the category of construction materials but not yet by LEED.
• The cases were good examples of sustainable buildings that are regarded as Ideal buildings for the near future or for next generations. The new designs and strategies implementations under the environmental impacts and LCA are commendable.
• The buildings under the case studies did not minimise the emissions 100%. On the other hand, they created examples or benchmarks capable of emulation in future construction.

Weaknesses of Green Star

Green Star building rating system has a few weaknesses in comparison to other progressive rating systems such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment) from the United States and United Kingdom Green Building Councils. One of the greatest setbacks of Green Star is arrival at differing results when similar projects make similar submissions for certification (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). This inconsistency dents its credibility and further enhances the fact that it cannot be standardized even in a smaller environment, which may disgruntle clientele. Second, Green Star certification takes too long with high costs and complex third party consultation structures. Third, the points attained tend to be criticized for not realizing some critical aspects (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). For example, roof solar energy is not included in the credit point for Green Star. This has contributed partly to the lower performance rating of less than 80% in 2012 (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). Others like LEED and BREEAM enjoyed better performance ratings. The fees associated with Green Star are too broad and somewhat complicating to the client. They include consulting fees and Green Star Certification fee. Clients do not enjoy consulting fees since they are too disjointed (fees for documentation requirements, inconsistent assessment fees among others) (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). The fourth weakness is that Green Star rating system does not take into account residential buildings such as town houses. The system is specifically designed for commercial houses (Dirlich, 2011). Lastly, Green Star’s data collection for credit allocations is not reliable due to the model, which calculates the carbon emission. The model is incapable of determining inbuilt stochasticity of infrastructure emissions and the existence of unobserved explanatory variables is neglected (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). This leads undesired discrepancies in ratings for similar submissions (Green Building Council of Australia 2013).

Green Star uses LCA to measure performance of materials. However, the importance in the implementation of a LCA lies on the fact that construction materials have a significant environmental impact that extend beyond the building itself. In other words, most of the buildings environmental impacts are derived from the materials that are used in construction. Furthermore, according to the 2030 Challenge for Products it is estimated that the environmental impact (i.e. measured by Gas (GHG) emissions and energy usage) from the materials required in constructing buildings will only be equalled after a period of twenty to thirty years of building operations. In addition, the difference between environmental impact of construction materials and building operations will only extend further if the scope of the analysis were to consider the full collateral effects that are involved along the multiple production steps required in the life cycle of construction materials: extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, use and final disposal. In this regard, one more reason that justifies the execution of a LCA is the need for a coherent Green Star rating system that includes a better measurement in the material category and, therefore, favours the use of environmentally friendly construction materials in the building sector. This will create an incentive for demand and innovation in the use of more sustainable materials across the building industry. A good example of these products can be found in sustainably produced wood and green cleaning products.

Moreover, a LCA on construction materials would generate a comprehensive analysis that includes the life cycle of a product and, in doing so, facilitates knowledgeable decisions that will consequently deliver higher benefits for local communities, the environment and human health. The implications of including a LCA analysis on the Green Star rating have the potential to transform and expand new directions in sustainable building across Australia.

In regards to the Green House Gas (GHG) emission and pollution category Green Star is considerably far behind BREEAM and LEED schemes. This is mainly because Green Star’s attributes are more design-oriented rather than being a rating tool to be applied for actual performance on sustainable building operations. Therefore, Green Star rating is inefficient in measuring and controlling Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and pollution levels in the building stock. This sustainability issue is addressed in different ways by BREEAM and LEED rating systems: the first scheme directly encourages the reduction in carbon emissions to zero net emissions by granting in this category up to 10.56 % of its overall score; whereas the latter is more focused in indoor air pollutants reduction, especially those that are detrimental, scented or irritant to the well-being of occupants. The actual performance sustainability gap in the Australian construction industry is filled by NABERS, which is a national and mandatory rating tool which role is to evaluate performance in terms of energy efficiency and carbon emissions. Consequently, the green building industry in Australia has a high level of dependence in the federal government to establish adequate levels of sustainable performance, through measures that include the Commercial Building Disclosure scheme and Tax Breaks for Green Buildings

Solutions for Green Star Weaknesses

The above shortcomings allow Green Star competitors to have an upper hand in ratings. In its 2012 report, Green Star undertakes to improve its rating to include residential houses (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). Noting that new residential buildings account for over 60% of the total upcoming buildings, Green Star undertakes to rate them too (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). Additionally, green Star should make more changes in point allocations. For example, buildings with solar panels should enjoy better ratings as this sustainable use of energy cuts carbon emissions by 30% according to Portalatin, Koepe, Rostoski & Shouse (2010). Residential construction material (a factor that Green Star uses) is much more sustainable too as opposed to commercial buildings. Technical clarifications (TCs and Credit Interpretation Requests (CIRs) should be enhanced to allow the Rating Agency’s products such Retail, Multi Unit Residential, Healthcare, and the new Design and Build be less expensive (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). To attain better credits it is also incumbent upon Green Star to come up with a list of accredited suppliers and products for multiple projects for better ratings. This will reduce confusion associated with the need for a good rating but no specific of attaining one (Dirlich, 2011). Queries associated with the certification process should be enhanced too. This will ease communication flow from GBCA, TCs, CIRs and clients that hasten delivery of services. It is also incumbent upon Green Star to enhance consistency of assessments. Assessors ought to be accessible and TCs, CIRs should be followed up (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). This will eliminate any mischief in assessment and will enhance efficiency and effectiveness. In light of the above weaknesses, the preceding solutions may project Green Star in a better position with its competitors. It will go a long way in improving t he rating system to reflect the objectives of sustainability (Dirlich, 2011). A further look at credit points’ allocation should be done with the aim of a review to factor in residential buildings. Some sustainable features such solar water heating systems, solar lighting, use renewable gas for cooking, use of rain water preservation points among others are quite common in residential buildings (Green Building Council of Australia 2013).Third party consultants make the whole process of rating expensive especially when similar submissions arrive at different ratings (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). Green Star rating should overhaul data collection methods by catering for unexplained variables. These way similar submissions will arrive at similar results which effectively expensive processes of hiring TCs and CRIs (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). LEED and BREEAM also reach a higher standard than Green Star in terms of energy efficiency. LEED and BREEAM rating tools take into multiple environmental criteria for assessing performance based on two building references. On the contrary, Green Star scheme predicts performance based on only one building reference and considering less diverse environmental criteria to be included in the evaluation; consequently, any modifications can have a significant effect on the outcome of the energy score.

Future Trends

Future advancements in rating for sustainability may involve the following group of initiatives that will help to expand the awareness and positive response towards sustainability.

• Obtain more case studies with diverse and sophisticated needs for rating where LEED, BREEAM and Green Star are applied in an international context. More useful data banks and information centres will be generated that will lead to a better understanding of building ratings.
• The World Green Building Council could rally all national and regional rating tools in coming up with a global rating scheme. The scheme should have standardized environmental measurement and comparison tools. WBC would play a supervisory as role the National Agency plays the role of implementer.
• Green Star could look upon the future trends of LEED and BREEM schemes for analysis and comparison. Nuggets of information obtained could be instrumental to Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) in understanding growth in this area and positioning Green Star and other agencies towards obtaining lofty statuses of agencies such LEED and BREEAM.

Conclusions

Green building accreditations given to a project by a single rating scheme (e.g. LEED) reflects just a portion of accuracy the sustainability grade (e.g. six stars) of a building. This is proven by the fact that the score granted by LEED, BREEAM and Green Star rating systems could vary significantly under the same building. Could this be a pointer towards weaker rating tools? The paper arrives at some weak areas associated with Green Star.

• The results based on the case studies show that green accreditation levels under LEED, BREEAM and Green Star will vary according to the nature of the property project (i.e. new construction, refurbished, fit –out).
• More transparency between rating tools will benefit the development of sustainable infrastructure. Since this will increase property value and market competition, and consequently, generate a more pro-active building industry towards the achievement of sustainable accreditation.
• The development of a global rating scheme that is straightforward in terms of environmental measurement and international comparison purposes will undoubtedly deliver multiple benefits to the infrastructure industry. However, the main trade-off in doing this is that customized rating schemes are more successful in measuring environmental performance according to the particular needs of a determined country, state, or territory.
• The economy outlook is an important factor to take into account when it comes to establishing environmental rating policies for the building industry. More specifically, an economic crisis will discourage the infrastructure development market to go through green building accreditation that demands stricter environmental standards.
• Weaknesses such as structural expensive nature of TCs and CRIs paint a bad picture of Green Star. The rating system also is less diverse in its conclusions. The fact that they give accreditation at the design stage creates a situation where it may be manipulated.
• As part of solutions, Green Star needs to reevaluate its structures to eliminate these loopholes, reduce expensive red tape, and communicate more to clients and rate buildings based on trends to be a world-beater.

References

Agreening, L., Greene, D. L., & Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energy policy, 28(2), 389-401.

Atabekyan, A. (n.d.). Cundall Sydney Office, Sydney, Australia.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-737.

Barnea, A., Heinkel, R., & Kraus, A. (2005). Green Investors and Corporate Investment. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 16(2), 332-346.

Bell, S. (2000). Logical frameworks, Aristotle and soft systems: A note on the origins, values and uses of logical frameworks, in reply to Gasper. Public Administration and Development, 20(1), 29-31.

Birkeland, J. (2012). Positive development: From vicious circles to virtuous cycles Through Built Environment Design. London: Taylor & Francis.

Clark, D. (2009). The refurbishment of 55 St Andrews Place, Melbourne: Turning a sparrow into a peacock. Web.

Curwell, S., & Copper. I. (1998). The implication of urban sustainability. Building Research & Information, 26(1), 17-28.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2010). First wave of local Enterprise partnerships as government green lights local growth.

Dirlich, S. (2011). A Comparison of assessment and certification schemes for Sustainable building and suggestions for an international standard system. The IMRE Journal, 5(1), 1-12.

Dixon, T., Colantonio, D., Shiers, R., Reed, S., Wilkinson, P., & Gallimore, P. (2008). A Green Profession? A Global Survey of RICS Members and Their Engagement with the Sustainability Agenda. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 26(6), 460-81.

Dovers, S. (2002). Sustainability: reviewing Australia’s progress, 1992-2002. International Journal of Environment Studies, 59(5): 559-571.

Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organizational change for corporate Sustainability (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.

Fisher, E. (2001). Sustainability: The principle, its implementation, and its Enforcement. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 18(1), 361-367.

Fowler, M. & Rauch, M. (2006). Sustainable building rating systems summary. Richland: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).

Gann, D. M. (2000). Building innovation: complex constructs in a changing world. New Yrok: Thomas Telford.

Garnaut, R. (2011). Garnaut Climate Change Review. Web.

GBIG. (2013). Cundall Sydney Office Fitout.

Godfaurd, J. (2005). Sustainable building solutions: A review of lesson from natural World. Journal of Building and Environment 1(40), 319-328.

Green Building Council Australia (2012). Green Star Performance scoping paper Stakeholder Feedback Report.

Green Building Council of Australia. (2013). Green Star review 2012-13: Helping us builds a better rating system.

Green Building Council of Australia. (n.d.). Victoria Square.

Hall, J., Daneke, G., & Lenox, M. (2010). Sustainable development and Entrepreneurship: past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439-448.

Harmelink, M., Voogt, M., & Cremer, C. (2006). Analysing the effectiveness of renewable energy supporting policies in the European Union. Energy policy, 34(3), 343-351.

Hawkes, N. (1993). Structures: The way things are built. New York: Wiley.

International Energy Agency. (2012). CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion highlights. Web.

Jaraminiene, E., Bieksa, D., & Valuntiene, I. (2012). Estimating Potential and Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions in Lithuanian Buildings. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 1(59), 23-30.

Kibert, C. (2003). Deconstruction: the start of a sustainable materials strategy for the Built environment. UNEP Industry and Environment, 26(3), 84-88.

Lee, W., & Burnett, J., (2007). Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED. Building and Environment, 43(11), 2008, 1882-1891.

Olgyay, V., & Seruto, C. (2010). Whole-building retrofits: A gateway to climate stabilization. ASHRAE Transactions, 116(2), 1-8.

Portalatin, M., Koepe, K., Rostoski, M., & Shouse, T. (2010). Sustainability “how-to guide” series: Green building rating systems. IFMA Foundation. Web.

Pout, C. H., MacKenzie, F., & Bettle, R. (2002) Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Non Domestic Buildings: 2000 and Beyond. Australia: Building Research Establishment.

R. S. MEANS (2011). Builder’s Essentials: Estimating Building Costs for the Residential & Light Commercial Contractor. Web.

Ramanathan, V., & Carmichael, G. (2008). Global and regional climate changes Due to black carbon. Nature Geoscience 1(1), 221-227.

Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., & Schulte, K. (2009). International comparison of Sustainable rating tools. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 1-22.

Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., & Schulte, K.W. (2009). International comparisons of sustainability rating tools. JOSRE, 1(1), 1-22. Web.

Roodman, D., & Lenssen, N. (1995). A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming Construction. Web.

Russell, M.D. (2011). Enhancing building rating systems based on carbon foot printing. Web.

Shove, E. (1998) Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy policy, 26(15), 1105-1112.

Srebric, J. (2010). Opportunities for green building (GB) rating systems to improve indoor air quality credits and to address changing climatic conditions. Web.

Sustainability Building Australia (2013). A comparison of building rating systems: Leed, Green Star, BREEAM. A proposal to integrate Biomimicry into Green Star Rating. Web.

Sustainability Victoria. (2012). Carbon neutral offices: The Pixel building case study. Web.

Taylor, A. (2010). Building leadership capacity to drive sustainable water management: The evaluation of a customised program. Water Science & Technology, 61(11), 2797-2807.

United Nation Environmental Program (2009). Buidlings and Climate Change: Summary for decision-makers. Web.

Whittington, R., Johnson, G. & Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring Strategy Text & Cases., New York: FT Prentice Hall.

Wild, S. (n.d.). Green rating tools comparison, evolution and future. Cundall.