Green building certifications are a big part of how the construction industry is responding to climate change, resource limits, and growing concerns about indoor health.
Whether you are a developer, architect, construction manager, or are just entering the sector, it's important to understand the growing importance of sustainable practices and environmental responsibility in the built environment.
Image Credit: Dmitry Kovalchuk/Shutterstock.com
Systems like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), and a range of regional standards give design teams a clear framework to improve building performance and show regulators, investors, and occupants that they’re serious about sustainability.
These certifications don’t just influence the early design phase. They shape material choices, system design, and long-term outcomes like energy use, resilience, and even the building’s market value.
Want to keep this for later? Grab your free PDF here!
Why Certification Systems Matter
Buildings use a lot of energy, contribute heavily to carbon emissions, and directly impact the health of the people who live and work inside them. That’s why green building certifications were created in the first place, to push the industry to design and operate buildings that do better, not just meet minimum codes.
Unlike regulations, these systems are voluntary, which gives them room to be more ambitious. And that ambition pays off. Certified buildings often perform more reliably, use fewer resources, and come with lower operational risks. As a result, they’re increasingly seen as safer bets by lenders, insurers, and investors.1,2
Certifications also help teams stay aligned. By organizing credits around themes such as energy, water, materials, and indoor environmental quality, they make trade-offs visible and encourage integrated design approaches that consider life-cycle impacts rather than isolated component choices.2,3
LEED: Globalization of a US Framework
Originally launched in the US, LEED has evolved from a national guideline into a global benchmark for green building. Managed by the US Green Building Council, it’s now used in over 180 countries (often adapted to fit local markets, but still anchored in a shared framework for evaluating building performance).
The most recent version, LEED v4.1, sharpens its focus on measurable outcomes. It raises the bar on energy efficiency, expands requirements for material transparency, and puts more weight on actual performance like tracking water usage and verifying indoor air quality rather than just design intent.2,4
LEED’s point system is structured across categories such as energy, water, materials, site design, and indoor environmental quality. Credits are also available for innovation and regional priorities. This setup encourages a well-rounded strategy, rather than a narrow focus on a single issue like energy. It also rewards what a building does in practice (its documented performance achievements) more heavily than mere policy statements or design intentions.3,4
What makes LEED globally relevant is its flexibility. Whether it's a high-rise in Singapore or a school in South America, teams can apply the same core principles while adapting to local constraints and goals.
BREEAM: Contextual Emphasis and Breadth
BREEAM is one of the earliest green building certification systems, developed in the UK in the 1990s. Since then, it has grown into a family of standards covering new construction, existing buildings, and even entire communities.
While LEED often emphasizes measurable outcomes, BREEAM puts more weight on process, focusing on how buildings are planned, delivered, and maintained within their local context.4,5
What sets BREEAM apart is its adaptability. The system uses a weighted scoring method that allows different categories, like energy, materials, pollution, biodiversity, and resilience, to carry more or less influence depending on regional priorities. This flexibility makes it easier to align projects with local environmental goals and legal requirements, whether in the UK, Europe, or other international markets.
BREEAM also looks beyond building performance alone. Many of its criteria address project management practices, site impacts during construction, and long-term environmental stewardship. In European contexts especially, its alignment with frameworks like the European Union’s Level(s) supports broader goals around lifecycle carbon, circular economy principles, and sustainable resource use.3,5
In short, BREEAM focuses on how a building is built, as well as how well that process fits into a specific place and policy landscape.
Comparing LEED and BREEAM in Practice
LEED and BREEAM both aim to promote sustainability at the whole-building level, but they differ in how they get there.
One of the key distinctions is the balance between prescriptive requirements and performance-based outcomes.
LEED tends to emphasize measurable targets, especially for energy and water use, supported by detailed modeling and, increasingly, post-occupancy performance data. This approach pushes teams to optimize building systems and track how well they actually perform once in use.
BREEAM, on the other hand, places greater value on planning processes, site-specific strategies, and alignment with local regulations. Rather than setting universal performance thresholds, it allows for flexibility by weighting different categories based on regional context.4,6
These differences shape how teams approach certification. A project aiming for LEED, for instance, might prioritize high-efficiency HVAC systems, detailed energy simulations, and product transparency documentation. A BREEAM project, however, might focus more on construction logistics, transportation planning, and site ecology alongside resource efficiency.
For developers, investors, and public agencies, these distinctions matter. Choosing between systems often comes down to regional policy alignment, ESG targets, or the specific values a project wants to highlight, whether that’s carbon reduction, biodiversity, health, or process accountability.4,6
Emerging Regional Standards in Asia and the Middle East
Over the past decade, countries across Asia and the Middle East have started to develop their own green building certification systems. Understandably, these systems are designed to better reflect local climates, resource constraints, and development goals, all while still engaging with global sustainability benchmarks.
In the Middle East and North Africa, systems like the Global Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS) and the Estidama Pearl Rating System address challenges like water scarcity, extreme heat, and rapid urbanization. Their criteria are shaped by local environmental pressures and cultural context, with a strong emphasis on passive cooling, thermal comfort, and water conservation.7,8
Saudi Arabia’s Mostadam rating system offers a clear example of how national priorities can be embedded into certification. Developed by the Ministry of Housing, it supports the country’s Vision 2030 goals by linking credits to energy and water efficiency, waste reduction, and compliance with the Saudi Green Building Code. Mostadam also offers tailored tracks for residential, commercial, and community-scale projects, reflecting the different needs across the building sector.8,9
It is important to point out that these regional frameworks are not looking to replace systems like LEED or BREEAM, but rather to complement them, bringing local relevance to the global conversation around sustainable buildings.
India and Other Regional Frameworks
India’s green building frameworks follow a similar path. As the country faces rapid urbanization and mounting pressure on its energy and water systems, two main certification systems have gained ground: the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) and the frameworks developed by the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC).
Both place strong emphasis on passive, climate-responsive design strategies like optimizing daylight, improving ventilation, and reducing cooling loads, which are especially important in cities dealing with high temperatures and grid constraints. They’re also designed to balance sustainability with affordability, making them more accessible across a wide range of projects. Many of their criteria align with national building policies, which have helped drive adoption at scale.10
Regional frameworks in the Asia Pacific are also coordinating through initiatives such as the Net Zero Readiness Framework. This initiative aims to harmonize expectations regarding operational carbon and guide countries in upgrading their local codes and certification pathways. This collaboration enables markets to maintain regional standards. It also provides comparability for international investors and supply chain participants focused on decarbonization across their portfolios.3,11
From Checklists to Accountability: How Certification is Changing
Over the last few years, it's safe to say that green building certifications have shifted from checklist-style compliance to a more rigorous standard: verified performance across the entire building life cycle.
There’s a clear shift in priorities. Operational energy and water use are now tracked more closely, and there's increasing pressure to account for embodied carbon (the emissions tied to materials and construction, not just building operations). Certifications are also paying more attention to how buildings respond to climate risks like extreme heat, flooding, or grid instability, as well as how they support occupant health in real-world conditions.1,3
But even as systems evolve, gaps remain. These include limited coverage of social equity issues, inconsistent approaches to life cycle assessments, and varying integration of climate adaptation criteria. These gaps are prompting updates to well-known certifications like LEED and BREEAM, as well as regional systems.3,12
Net-zero carbon targets, climate resilience labels, and health-focused metrics are also increasingly being used alongside core certifications to capture a fuller picture of performance. Rather than replacing existing tools, these additions are helping projects address specific goals more directly, especially in areas where traditional systems haven’t kept pace.3,12
Certification Criticism: Green or Greenwashed?
As certification systems have grown in visibility and influence, so have the critiques.
While green building frameworks have undoubtedly raised the bar across the industry, not every certified project delivers on the promise of long-term performance or even basic sustainability.
One common concern is “point chasing,” the tendency for teams to focus on credits that are easy to document, rather than those with the most meaningful environmental impact. For example, installing bike racks or using regionally sourced materials might earn points, but they don't carry the same weight as deep energy retrofits or full life cycle carbon analysis. This can lead to a high-scoring building that still performs poorly in practice.
Another issue is post-certification drop-off. Many certifications evaluate buildings at the design or construction stage, but don’t require ongoing monitoring or reassessment. A building might be certified as energy efficient on paper, yet operate far below expectations once it's occupied due to user behavior, poor maintenance, or system overrides.
These gaps have led some to question whether certification has, in some cases, become a branding exercise more than a performance guarantee. Critics point out that sustainability labels can be used to boost real estate value or meet ESG targets without delivering meaningful outcomes on the ground.
That said, certification bodies are responding. LEED has introduced Arc, a platform that allows buildings to track performance data over time. BREEAM, too, has strengthened its post-occupancy evaluation criteria and emphasizes site management and verification. Newer tools like net-zero carbon certifications and health-focused add-ons also aim to plug some of the blind spots in traditional systems.
Certification remains a valuable signal. But it’s no longer enough on its own. As expectations rise, so does the need for transparency, real-world data, and accountability beyond the final plaque on the wall.
What it Takes to Get Certified
Pursuing green building certification is as much about process as it is about outcomes. While the frameworks mentioned above provide the roadmap, it’s up to project teams to navigate the details.
It usually starts in the design phase, where teams set sustainability goals and identify which credits they want to pursue. Architects, engineers, sustainability consultants, and sometimes commissioning agents work together to model performance, document strategies, and ensure that design decisions align with certification requirements.
As the project progresses, extensive documentation is gathered (everything from material sourcing and waste tracking to HVAC specs and energy models). This paperwork is submitted for review, where third-party assessors evaluate whether the project has met the criteria for certification. If all goes well, a rating is awarded - though in some systems, this can take weeks or months after project completion.
Timelines vary depending on the certification and the project’s complexity, but teams often plan for 12–18 months of integration from early design through final review. Costs can also vary widely. For LEED, for example, certification fees might range from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars, not including the added design and consulting time needed to document and verify compliance.
It’s a detailed, often demanding process.
Teams sometimes face challenges like chasing “easy” points to meet thresholds, reworking designs late in the process, or dealing with documentation fatigue. But when done well, certification can lead to stronger performance, fewer operational surprises, and a building that holds its value better over time.
Outlook for Global and Regional Convergence
As green building certifications continue to evolve, the real shift will not be related to the systems themselves, but in how we define what a “good” building is.
Designing for energy or water efficiency is no longer enough on its own. The future of sustainable construction will be shaped by how well buildings respond to uncertainty, how they support the people who use them, and how they fit within the larger social and environmental systems around them. Certification can help guide that process, but it’s just one piece of a much bigger picture.
For those stepping into the built environment today, the challenge will be to help shape what these frameworks become. Because the next generation of standards will be written by people who ask harder questions, push for more accountability, and design with a broader sense of what responsibility really looks like.
Looking to Learn More?
Are you curious about where green building is headed, or how to get involved yourself? Here are a few more articles for you to dig into:
References and Further Reading
- Li, Y. et al. (2021). A comprehensive review on green buildings research: Bibliometric analysis during 1998–2018. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(34), 46196. DOI:10.1007/s11356-021-12739-7. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-12739-7
- Holland, M. J. (2024). Green Building Certification System Review: Findings Report. U.S. General Services Administration. https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/GBCS_Findings%20Report%20June%202024-508-v1.1.pdf
- Anyanya, D. et al. (2025). Evaluating sustainable building assessment systems: A comparative analysis of GBRS and WBLCA. Frontiers in Built Environment, 11, 1550733. DOI:10.3389/fbuil.2025.1550733. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/built-environment/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2025.1550733/full
- Gabr, M. (2025). Green Building Certification Systems: A Comparative Analysis of LEED and BREEAM. Journal of Propulsion Technology. ISSN: 1001-4055 Vol. 46 No. 1. https://www.propulsiontechjournal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/8783
- Ferrari, S. et al. (2022). New Level(s) framework: Assessing the affinity between the main international Green Building Rating Systems and the European scheme. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 155, 111924. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111924. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032121011898
- Feijão, D. et al. (2024). Comparative analysis of sustainable building certification processes. Journal of Building Engineering, 96, 110401. DOI:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110401. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710224019697
- Mourad, R., & Wahid, J. B. (2022). A comparative study on sustainability assessment level (BREEAM, LEED, and Estidama) to develop better environment sustainability assessment. Salud Ciencia y Tecnología, 237. DOI:10.56294/saludcyt2022237. https://sct.ageditor.ar/index.php/sct/article/view/52
- Zafar, S. (2023). Green Building Rating Systems in the MENA Countries. EcoMENA. https://www.ecomena.org/green-building-mena/
- Hemmati, M. et al. (2024). Assessing the Influence of Green Building Certification Programs on Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Development in the Middle East. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol12, Issue 03. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4943446. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4943446
- Patil, P. et al. (2022). Comparative Study of GRIHA, LEED, BREEAM Rating Systems for Green Building. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT), Vol 2, Issue 1. DOI:10.48175/IJARSCT-2508. https://ijarsct.co.in/Paper2508.pdf
- Coll, L. (2024). Green Buildings on the Rise: Why Building Products Matter. Sustainalytics. https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-research/resource/investors-esg-blog/green-buildings-on-the-rise--why-building-products-matter
- De Castro, D., & Kim, A. (2021). Adaptive or Absent: A Critical Review of Building System Resilience in the LEED Rating System. Sustainability, 13(12), 6697. DOI:10.3390/su13126697. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6697
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.