Non-residential sustainable building rating tools in Australia

Page contents:

• Introduction
• National Construction Code - minimum compliance
• Rating tools typically considered in Australia
• Other sustainable building rating tools
• Conclusion
• References
• Glossary
• Further Reading
• About the Author
• Appendix

Introduction

Various sustainable building rating tools in Australia have evolved to meet market demands. Some of these ratings measure actual performance (eg NABERS, Green Star Performance) while others rate a building on its design features (eg Green Star Buildings). Several rating tools focus on a narrower sustainability outcome only (eg energy or water) while others provide a holistic rating encompassing a range of criteria. Certain schemes are used for legislation or local planning requirements, adopted to hold project teams accountable, or for marketing and benchmarking against other buildings.

The overarching intent is to reward and encourage projects to go beyond minimum legal requirements with the ultimate goal of delivering sustainable or regenerative outcomes.

Considerations when selecting a rating tool for a new building or refurbishment include:

• What are the owner or developer’s sustainability strategies including any ESG targets?
• What is their level of ambition for this project?
• What is the client’s role in championing and supporting sustainability outcomes?
• What aspects of sustainability are most important to them and their stakeholders?
• Has the client dedicated a budget for sustainability initiatives?
• How does the client define value within their budget?
• Does the client have their own custom tool or guidelines for sustainability?

All these factors contribute to determining the most appropriate sustainable building rating(s) to target for a given project.

This note provides a summary of the most commonly used sustainable building rating tools in the Australian market and outlines their key features, administrators, applications, scoring methodology, extent of adoption historically, future plans and program implications such as cost and timing.

This includes international options which are commonly considered in Australia. The following tools are outlined in this paper:

• BESS (Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard)
• Climate Active (formally the National Carbon Offset Standard)
• Green Star (including Buildings and Performance)
• Living Building Challenge (including Zero Energy, Zero Carbon, Core and Petal ratings)
• NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System)
• PassivHaus (or Passive House)
• WELL Standard

Less utilised sustainable building rating tools in Australia are also summarised, including:

• BASIX (Building Sustainability Index)
• BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)
• CBD and BEEC (Commercial Building Disclosure and Building Energy Efficiency Certificate)
• EnviroDevelopment
• Fitwel
• LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
• One Planet Living
• STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System)

These tools are presented with reference to the National Construction Code (NCC) Section J which sets the minimum standard for Class 2 to 9 Australian buildings. This supports a comparative discussion and provides assistance in selecting the most appropriate tool for a project. Links to further information are also included for reference.

A summary of the tools, including their applicability and themes that they cover, is provided in the Appendix.

Back to top

Why pursue a sustainable building rating?

Sustainable building ratings are typically voluntary so are pursued for various reasons by clients, including:

• Planning requirements – Many local councils request that sustainable building ratings be adopted. This can be in the form of guidance, the acceptance of equivalent tools or self-assessments. Mandating a certified third-party sustainable building rating tool such as BESS by multiple Victorian councils, Green Star – increasingly proposed to hold owners and developers accountable – such as in the City of Melbourne (City of Melbourne 2023) and NABERS by the NSW Government. Internationally the City of London and many other London councils require certified BREEAM ratings for new and major developments (City of London 2023).
• Marketing opportunities – sustainable building ratings enable developers or owners to market a third party verified claim externally which can be compared with other buildings while also simplified for communicating with prospective tenants or residents. The organisations that administer sustainable building ratings typically have marketing guidelines and support owners or developers with marketing impacts including access to industry events and competitions. 
• Investor attractions – Typically commercial buildings are not entirely owned by the local owner or developer that commenced the project. Once built, or even during construction or design, a large proportion can be sold to investors who are seeking a reliable long-term investment. Sustainability is a key component of this investment decision and sustainable building ratings are considered as part of this investment decision. The Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) is widely used by owners and developers to benchmark their assets in operation with high-performing buildings attracting high levels of international investment.
• Accountability – A final advantage to consider is holding the project team, including designers and contractors, accountable. By having a third party undertake a review of the documentation quality the project team through design, construction and sometimes operation, must deliver the briefed target. Without this scrutiny, it is hard to have as much confidence in the sustainable outcomes delivered by the project with self-assessments inherently biased and featuring lower levels of documentation typically.

Demonstrating appreciation and consideration of the reasons for pursuing a sustainable building rating can help designers respond appropriately to client briefs. The following questions help to further enhance this understanding.

Back to top

What is the client committed to as an organisation?

In many cases clients, including private and public institutions, have established targets associated with sustainable building ratings. It is worth reviewing their recent projects and sustainability or Environmental Social Governance (ESG) strategies which are usually published online.

This doesn’t mean that clients will not consider higher or different targets however an understanding of their current preferences and recent history will help to facilitate a more productive discussion about options that may suit their latest project.

Back to top

What is the ambition for this project?

Often clients have an ambition for a project as part of their vision. This may include statements such as ‘world-class’ or ‘regenerative’. An understanding of their intent can help guide the selection of the most aligned rating tool to match this ambition.

Be mindful that self-reported equivalences from the administrators of rating tools should not be relied upon as they are inherently biased.

A more reliable source is third party independent reviews. Advocating for the client to engage an experienced sustainable building design consultant can also help with this early in the process. However, again, beware, many consultants have their own biases as they are typically active members of particular sustainable building ratings with varied levels of experience or understanding across all options.

Comparisons have been provided in this guide with the strengths and gaps for each sustainable building rating for consideration (the Author’s current and past affiliations are noted in About the Author).

Back to top

What aspects of sustainability are most important to the owner or developer?

Where a client has a clear preference for specific aspects of sustainability, this can help define the most appropriate sustainable building rating tools for application on the project.

This can be identified through a workshop process where an understanding of the client’s business case and values are explored with consideration of their key drivers and stakeholders.

Potential findings may include preferences for visible sustainability initiatives to show the public or occupants. This is often incorporated in education projects, for example, so students can see how the building works (Figure 1). Where visibility is a preference, a project may be more likely to pursue features such as renewable energy, timber structures and green infrastructure.

These preferences may align with particular sustainable building rating(s) and should be cross-referenced. Key themes of each sustainable building rating tool are presented in this guide to aid this process.

Back to top

What is the budget and how does the client define value?

In most instances, applying a higher standard beyond the National Construction Code to developments represents a cost premium that clients need to understand.

In many cases, clients will have already accounted for this cost premium in budgets based on typical industry construction and not necessarily minimum compliance. Understanding this nuance is key to establishing a baseline cost and what sustainable features may already be effectively costed for.

Where additional investment is required, a business case will typically need to be made. The business case can be a simple measure of ‘payback’ – a test which ascertains whether the operational savings (typically from energy and water) will payback the upfront investment. Other considerations include:

• Whether the client needs to incorporate the proposed sustainability feature to meet their public and/or planning commitments.
• Where the tenant may be willing to pay a premium for a given feature.
• If the proposed sustainability feature is planned to feature prominently in marketing, providing the client a market advantage.
• Whether the proposed sustainability feature is part of achieving a broader objective such as a rating certification.
• If a proposed sustainability feature aligns with a client’s own internal or external sustainability or ESG framework.

Costs of sustainable design can vary and it is recommended that a suitably qualified and experienced cost consultant or quantity surveyor is engaged to inform this process, from early in the design process. A sustainable building (or ESD) consultant typically supports this exercise in translating the rating’s criteria through a combination of their experience and early-stage analysis. Where a sustainable rating is simply costed as a whole or even at the feature level without specific building interpretation and analysis this cost estimate will likely be over-represented and not effective for making informed decisions.

The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) have been collecting information on project costs as part of a ‘Financial Transparency’ credit criteria. This was published in 2016 and provides a useful insight into the broad cost of implementing sustainability across a range of building types (Green Building Council of Australia 2016). It should be noted this is out of date and limited by the extent of data collected. However, future updates should contain significantly more data as this information has been collected from many Green Star rated projects since this first publication.

Back to top

National Construction Code - minimum compliance

The National Construction Code (NCC) represents the primary set of technical design and construction provisions for buildings and sets the minimum required level for the sustainability of new buildings and major renovations.

The NCC is important to understand as sustainability standards are often presented relative to the NCC minimum design and construction provisions.
Section J of the NCC Volume One pertains to energy use in non-residential buildings (class 2 to 9) and includes requirements for the building fabric, building sealing, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems (HVAC), hot water systems, artificial lighting and metering requirements.

The following sections summarise the NCC energy efficiency provisions applicable to non-residential buildings at the time of writing including current requirements and future updates that have been published to date.

Back to top

NCC 2019 Volume One

The NCC 2019 update constituted a major revision at the time and was implemented in effect from 2020.

The update closed previous loopholes routinely exploited by the industry through the deficiencies of the NCC 2016 Section J2 Glazing calculator which returned poor minimum design specifications in certain circumstances, effectively defining a reference building that could be easily out-performed using the alternative verification method ‘JV3’. This loophole was closed and although JV3 is still an available alternative verification method, the Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) glass performance requirements are relatively simple and relatively high performing, so cannot be exploited in the same manner.

The NCC 2019 also introduced alternative verification methods that enable Green Star or NABERS to be used as pathways to demonstrate compliance. This effectively reduces documentation burden for projects that are pursuing these ratings with the DTS method only used early in the design process.

It is still common to see JV3 as a requirement in client’s design briefs, but in the author’s experience, it is no longer as commonly used.

Back to top

NCC 2022

The NCC 2022 has introduced several changes for non-residential buildings with a focus on enabling future installation of electric vehicle charging, renewable energy and batteries.

Note that transition arrangements apply for some requirements of the NCC 2022. In states and territories where transition dates apply, NCC 2019 Section J clauses can still be used beyond the NCC 2022 adoption date of 1 May 2023. Transition and adoption dates for the states and territories are documented here on the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) website.

An update is planned for the NCC 2025 with changes primarily focused on the commercial building sector.

Refer Acumen notes National Construction Code (NCC) and Section J and commercial building facade design: NCC 2022 for further resources.

The NCC 2022 can be accessed online for free here on the ABCB website.

Back to top

Rating tools typically considered in Australia

The following sustainable building rating tools are typically considered on projects in Australia, listed alphabetically. Strengths and gaps are presented for each tool. The Appendix further summarises these options for direct comparison, including applications and themes.

BESS – The Building Environment Sustainability Scorecard

Assessment tool designed for the planning process in Victoria to support the Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process. Participating councils are noted online (BESS 2024).

Strengths:

• Free to access for all with transparent criteria.
• Simple, quick and easy to use with integrated calculations.
• Flexible compliance options with alternative calculations and evidence for some criteria.
• Directly linked to planning process and applied across a large number of council areas.
• Holistic consideration of sustainability with a number of different categories.
• Minimum requirements for several categories ensuring some aspects cannot be traded off entirely.

Gaps:

• Benchmarked on minimum compliance so reliant on robust minimum requirements and subject to change as the NCC evolves.
• Prescriptive criteria primarily which can lead to ‘tick-box’ approaches.
• Inconsistent with other standards such as Green Star in places (eg daylight).
• Not typically recognised by tenants or investors.
• Limited in scope (no materials category for example at the time of writing, and therefore silent on responsible sourcing or upfront carbon).

Future plans: Recent update to V8 reflects trends and changes to industry such as all electric developments and the updated NCC 2022. Future changes would likely follow changes to NCC anticipated in 2025 and 2028.

BESS website

Back to top

Climate Active – Carbon Neutral Standard

Climate Active is the Australian Government’s National Carbon Neutral Standard that seeks to support and guide businesses to account and offset carbon emissions in a transparent manner. It has become the Australian industry standard for defining a carbon neutral building and can be obtained as an extension to NABERS or Green Star Performance ratings.

Strengths:

• Australia-wide standard that has been in place since 2010.
• Crossovers with other standards such as NABERS and Green Star Performance. To certify a building as Climate Active one of these rating tools must be used. This makes it more efficient for administration and cost.
• Increasingly recognised brand and availability to other sectors such as products and events.
• Results are all listed publicly online including where offsets are purchased from, the extent of greenhouse gas emissions, the boundary defined etc.
• Relevance criteria for defining inclusions within greenhouse gas emissions boundaries is clear and supports wider inclusions when relevant such as embodied carbon.
• Detailed accounting processes.
• Option for portfolio-wide reporting enabling greater uptake.
• Rules and requirements for carbon offset products including additionality where it must be documented how the product results in additional carbon savings which wouldn’t have occurred without this financial investment and support.
• Publicly available information through the website.
• Free training online.

Gaps:

• Narrow in its focus – only greenhouse gas emissions. Devalues water and waste etc as accounted for but when converted to greenhouse gases their impact is typically very small by comparison and could be overlooked.
• No requirement to preference renewable energy over offsets for energy-related emissions.
• Reliance on offsets for greenhouse gas emissions in most if not all cases.
• Offsets do not have to be from Australia or feature co-benefits. Can lead to low cost and low-value offsets being preferred.
• Projects must demonstrate action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions but ultimately all projects can be Climate Active certified provided sufficient carbon offsets are purchased.

Future plans: Ongoing certification and recertification of increasing numbers of businesses.

Climate Active website

Back to top

Green Star Buildings

Green Star Buildings assesses and certifies the sustainability outcomes for the design and construction of new buildings or major refurbishments. Typically, a project will be designed to meet the Green Star criteria and obtain a ‘Designed’ certification with precise marketing requirements prior to being awarded a final ‘Certified’ outcome based on final construction or as-built documentation.

Strengths:

• Well recognised in Australia and considered equivalent to BREEAM and LEED internationally.
• Referenced in planning requirements.
• Referenced in the Property Council of Australia (PCA) Office Quality Matrix for tenants.
• Referenced in many private and public institution’s briefs.
• Progressive and transparent plans for updates up to 2030.
• Updated requirements which respond to industry trends such as Upfront Carbon, Electrification and Urban Nature.
• Practical Guides produced by the GBCA with other organisations are high quality. Up to date documents on a range of topics are freely available.
• New Minimum Expectations are effective in setting a series of mandatory requirements across the rating to set a consistent baseline for all Green Star projects.
• The new online platform should simplify and streamline the submission management process.

Gaps:

• Despite the ‘Positive’ category name, the outcomes defined in this category are not Net-Positive in their outcomes but consistent with previous iterations of the Green Star tools in representing a range of outcomes between minimum compliance and Net Zero. ‘Towards Zero’ would be a more appropriate category name.
• The rating features numerous complex calculators which are not transparent and the online submission tool is still not entirely functional at the time of writing.
• The ratings are third party verified but this process is out-sourced to Assessors (consultants in the industry) and their opinion and interpretation of the guidelines can vary which creates challenges to project teams.
• The split between base building and tenants in commercial buildings is not as well defined as it is internationally with confusion at times occurring between tenant guidance and tenant leases.
• There can be a gap between the design intent of Green Star rated buildings and the ongoing performance as there is no operational component to the rating. A separate Green Star Performance rating can be obtained but is not required.
• Not all of the credits and criteria have to be met, even to achieve the highest rating (6 star) so sustainability can be compromised even when targeting the highest rating. For example a 6 star rating could feature only business as usual water performance with a rainwater tank and water efficient fixtures, no green infrastructure at all, no renewable energy on-site, illegally sourced timber and no waterway protection measures.
• Submission guidelines are not freely available.
• Cost for certification is paid 100% upfront which presents a risk to project teams pre-town planning. This registration can generally be repurposed or re-assigned but presents a barrier to early engagement with the GBCA.

Future plans: Green Star Buildings features an in-built update framework focused on meeting 2030 targets for carbon. Updates are planned for 2023, 2026 and 2030 for several of the credits associated with carbon. This will effectively require all new buildings completed after 2030 to be all electric, with no fossil fuels on-site and entirely offset upfront carbon impacts.

GBCA website

Back to top

Green Star Performance

The ‘Performance’ version of the GBCA’s Green Star rating suite focuses on operational buildings and provides a framework for projects to track and progressively improve their operational performance. A Green Star Performance rating is considered active during the building’s operation across 3 year certification cycles. Typically a year of baseline data would be captured and then a plan developed to improve it to demonstrate improvements. Improvements to policy and other aspects of the building’s sustainable design and performance may also be targeted between certifications such as green cleaning for example.

Strengths:

• Holistic in its design and can be applied across all types of buildings (except Class 1).
• Integrates NABERS Energy and Water performance monitoring to streamline the process and effectively not compete with NABERS, but broaden the sustainability credentials of a building.
• Aligned to international reporting frameworks such as GRESB (The Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark) so can appeal to investors.
• Enables and supports the continuous improvement in operation of buildings.
• Relatively low cost compared to the Green Star Building rating upfront.
• Portfolio-wide assessment can be managed internally by medium to large organisations.

Gaps:

• Similar to Green Star Buildings, the terminology used in the new category ‘Positive’ in v2 is an overreach. This is at its best ‘Net-Zero’.
• As per Green Star Buildings, all of the credits and criteria do not have to be met, even to achieve the highest rating (6 star) so sustainability can be compromised even when targeting the highest rating.
• Submission guidelines are not freely available.

Future plans: It is currently in transition from v1.2 which was released in 2017 and widely updated to a v2 which has been public since 2022 but will launch formally in 2024.

GBCA website: Green Star Performance

Back to top

Living Building Challenge

A holistic sustainable design, construction and performance standard administered in the USA but applicable globally. Recognised as the most challenging sustainable design standard globally, evidenced by limited number of successful ‘Living’ certifications. The standard generally requires net positive or regenerative outcomes both technically and in terms of advocacy – always asking ‘What Does Good Look Like?’

The standard requires early design intervention to implement key concept design changes to meet the various Imperatives including biophilic design workshops, water treatment, extensive on-site renewable energy provisions and upfront carbon reduction strategies. As designs develop, extensive material selection consideration needs to be given to ensure the challenging Red List is complied with and local sourcing criteria is met. Through construction, the evidence burden is significant, particularly around materials and operation which must be closely monitored to ensure targets are met in reality.

Strengths:

• Globally applicable and recognised enabling projects to make claims such as the ‘The most sustainable building of its type in the world’ and demonstrate globally leading standards have been met.
• The net positive and regenerative outcome is relatively unique in the market and positions projects with a genuine differentiator.
• Requirement for actual operational data ensures standard is not hypothetical and design intent is observed, strengthening credibility of the claims made.
• The Core and Petal certifications are more approachable and can be used as stepping stones towards the full Living Certification.
• The assigned Coach is a very supportive process that is about dialogue and genuinely best endeavours, differing from other rating systems which can be more transactional.

Gaps:

• Delayed receipt of ‘Living’ certification as performance period takes years to complete; delaying final certification award, due to the reliance on the actual performance. This time period can test project teams, particularly where there are complex tuning requirements or unexpected operational performance issues.
• Globally applicable but still US-centric so some Imperatives require effort to translate locally which can be a deterrent. The Living Futures Institute of Australia (LFIA) are actively developing Australian equivalencies to support local adoption.
• The challenge can be too much for some – a high number of projects drop out after failed attempts. Backup plans using the Core or other ratings can be an effective mechanism to reassure clients.
• Rules are complex and feature numerous exceptions which must be applied to be successful, particularly in Australia. There is a steep learning curve to understanding these technical exceptions ranging from responsibly sourced forestry supply chains to understanding the types of chemicals present within building products which are not typically made available.

Future plans: The International Living Future Institute (ILFI) are working on the fifth full version and seeking to maintain the standard’s position as a global leader in regenerative design and net positive outcomes in the built environment.

Living Building Challenge website

Introduction to the Living Building Challenge 4.0

Back to top

NABERS

A NABERS rating is a measurement of a specific environmental performance indicator of a building’s performance benchmarked against a peer group of similar buildings for relative comparison. The NABERS rating is undertaken in operation using 12 months of historical data. For new buildings it requires that the monitoring period occurs after the building occupancy has reached 75% and may also need to consider a tuning period so it is often 18-24 months before a new building receives its first NABERS rating following practical completion.

Strengths:

• Well recognised in Australia and globally leading in terms of market reach.
• Actual performance, directly linked to building operations.
• Simple to rate and certify.
• Transparent process with good access to support.
• Ratings are public and able to be viewed online with actual performance details published and able to be downloaded.
• Clear future plans for growth and collaborative approach to new development of tools.
• Referenced in planning requirements.
• Industry steering group is well structured and supported.
• A requirement for Commercial Building Disclosure (CBD) mandates NABERS Office Energy ratings for base buildings at point of sale or rent for tenancies over 1,000m2 are advertised.
• Referenced in the Property Council of Australia (PCA) Office Quality Matrix for tenants.
• Referenced in many private developer briefs.
• The NABERS Commitment Agreement process that involves a third party review is robust and enables buildings in design to advertise their targeted rating in advance to attract tenants.
• The NABERS Energy ratings separately report off-site energy procurement from renewable energy sources using Green Power which ensures that the focus is on building’s performance and efficiency on-site.
• Rules and requirements are freely available online.

Gaps:

• Although well utilised for Office Energy ratings, the other NABERS ratings are less well adopted and well known.
• Occupancy density is not recognised in NABERS for Offices so highly occupied buildings providing workplaces for more people (which consume more energy as a direct result) are effectively penalised.
• The separation between tenant and base building is strict and can result in less efficient energy systems being implemented to maintain the clear separation between these two ratings.
• NABERS Waste rewards high recycling rates and not necessarily a reduction of waste to landfill. For example, a party with glass bottles that all go in the recycling would yield a very positive impact on a NABERS Waste rating, whereas a returnable keg with reusable glasses would not be recognised.
• NABERS does not address aspects of sustainability that cannot be directly measured in performance such as daylight, views, cleaning, responsible sourcing, management etc that Green Star Performance addresses.

Future plans: NABERS is actively seeking to expand into new sectors with its ‘Accelerate’ program. This has led to new additions such as Residential Aged Care and Warehouses with schools and retail stores- recently added (NABERS, 2023). New tools such as NABERS Carbon are also being planned at the time of writing.

NABERS website

Back to top

Passivhaus

A construction certification standard that sets high-performance design standards that must be met resulting in a typical set of design principles being adopted with a fabric first approach informed by building science. These principles include air-tight building envelopes, high levels of thermal insulation, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, high-performance windows and thermal bridge elimination. The Passivhaus Standard requires design consideration from the concept phase through to the construction stages and practical completion.

Strengths:

• Internationally recognised high-performance building standard with calculation process that is simple to approach.
• Uncompromising with targets that must be met to achieve the Standard.
• The Plus and Premium standards acknowledge the role of renewable energy and promote net positive outcomes using Passivhaus Classic as a foundation.
• Can be applied to existing buildings with a variation to the standard called ‘EnerPHit’ which relaxes the criteria associated with air permeability.
• Building-science led approach is credible and clear. The heat balance calculations are effective to inform design discussions and focus design upgrades.
• Enhanced air quality, thermal comfort and occupant experience is evident in completed Passivhaus projects.
• Reduced operational costs realised from energy savings are significant.
• Significant benefits for residential designs due to major difference between the NCC and the Passivhaus Standard. The NCC 2022 has made gains towards Passivhaus with increased consideration of thermal bridges and mould prevention with higher energy targets. Green Star also requires air-tightness tests but Passivhaus remains a higher benchmark.
• The airtightness test offers an effective performance demonstration to verify construction quality.
• Strong local industry has emerged in recent years.

Gaps:

• Narrow in its focus for a sustainability rating so best explored with another holistic sustainability rating or self-assessed framework to ensure a broader spectrum of sustainability is accounted for.
• Energy modelling process is simplified and not entirely reliable for accurate prediction of real-world conditions. Dynamic simulation energy modelling is typically undertaken in parallel for larger and more complex buildings. Modelled results in the PHPP software should not be expected in operation in all cases and expectations should be managed.
• Approach to internal gains (heat from equipment, people and lighting etc) is not consistent with other industry standards making it harder to apply to other sectors than residential.
• Promotion of energy savings of ~80% is typical but can be misleading as it is not applicable in all cases for all types of buildings. For example a new office building that meets a NABERS Energy rating of 5.5 star would not result in an 80% reduction in energy if Passivhaus principles were applied. Rather the application of Passivhaus principles would help an office building achieve a 5.5 star NABERS Energy rating.

Future plans: In Australia the Passivhaus Standard is promoted and advocated for by the Australian Passivhaus Association with a desire to see greater adoption in the market. Increasingly developers are considering its application and local case studies demonstrate it can be adopted successfully in the Australian climate and delivered by Australian builders at all scales.

Related Acumen note Passivhaus: a pathway to low energy buildings in Australasia

The Passive House Institute website

Back to top

WELL Building Standard (WELL)

WELL is a rating system that focuses on the building occupants’ health and wellbeing through a combination of behaviour, operations and design. WELL is ultimately a performance standard and the certification occurs in operation but can also be designed towards for new buildings or major refurbishments.

Strengths:

• Evidence-based design standard.
• Deep health and wellbeing focus across design, policy and performance.
• International standard with flexibility in criteria to be able to be applied in different locations around the world.
• Freely accessible online criteria with clear requirements.
• Alternative Adherence Pathways that are accepted on projects with the International Well Building Institute (IWBI) are published with the criteria online for ease of reference.
• Online submission portal for project teams.
• Coaching support.
• Provision of tools and templates.
• Marketing support to promote your project.
• Increasingly recognised in the market by tenants.
• Strong alignment with social component of ESG reporting so scores well with investors.
• Discounts for emerging markets and sectors.
• Fees are payable as project progresses so registration isn’t a full commitment.
• Relatively simple to apply rules.
• Variations to WELL Standard through WELL Equity Rating and WELL Health-Safety Rating tools which are also available for specific use cases.
• ‘Crosswalks’ with other standards internationally such as LEED and Green Star recognising overlaps and identifying efficient approaches to integrate the requirements.

Gaps:

• Narrow in its focus across sustainability criteria with limited benefits beyond health and wellbeing. For example there are a number of features associated with water but the quantity of water consumption is not one of them.
• A large number of features makes the rating quite intimidating to adopt and can consume significant time in the design process. This requires careful management and recognition that many elements are policy or operational and can be handled separately to design issues for efficiency.
• Many features are achieved as business as usual in Australia as the Standard is from the USA and our rules and typical expectations can be higher. Eg no smoking, annual leave, employee benefits etc.
• Considered expensive in the market with alternatives such as Fitwel and NABERS Indoor Environment offering alternate options.

Future plans: There are WELL Pilot standards for community, retail, multi-family residential, education, restaurants and commercial kitchens which provide an indication of the direction that the IWBI are going, widening the applications that can be certified.

WELL Building Standard website

Back to top

Other sustainable building rating tools

The following sustainable building ratings are known in Australia and are important to understand as part of a wider spectrum of options that developers and owners may reference or consider. A brief overview and website links are provided for further information.

BASIX

BASIX is an online sustainable planning assessment tool in NSW. Increases to the required standards, as part of the new Sustainable Buildings State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP), came into effect from 1 October 2023. The 2023 version includes higher thermal performance standards and higher energy standards.

BASIX website

BREEAM

BREEAM is the British Research Establishment’s (BRE) Environmental Assessment Method and pre-dates Green Star with its foundation in 1990. It is similar in scope, structure and intent but UK centric. There is an international version and variants for new construction, refurbishments, fit-outs, in-use, communities and infrastructure. It is deeply embedded into UK planning and policy, to a greater extent than Green Star typically, with ratings such as ‘Excellence’ and ‘Outstanding’ instead of stars. It is applicable in Australia but there are very few precedents due to the existence of Green Star.

BREEAM website

CBD and BEEC

The Commercial Building Disclosure (CBD) Program is a regulatory program that requires commercial office spaces of 1,000m2 or more, at the time of sale or lease, to publish their energy performance data and feature this in their advertising. This helps raise awareness and markets performance. It requires a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate (BEEC) inclusive of a NABERS Office Energy Base Building rating as well as the power density of the tenancy lighting design.

CBD website

EnviroDevelopment

The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) developed a framework for sustainable development applicable to masterplans and various building types. It features a range of standards with certification available across six defined categories as ‘leafs’ which are Ecosystems, Waste, Energy, Materials, Water and Community.

EnviroDevelopment website

Fitwel ®

Fitwel ® is a US based health and wellness rating for buildings and fit-outs currently in its second iteration with a v3 planned. It can be applied worldwide and is considered simpler and cheaper to apply than the WELL Standard so has been successful with its market reach and can be used to inform site locations, design standards and policy strategies.

Fitwel ® website

Green Star Communities

The GBCA’s sustainability rating framework for communities has been actively adopted in Australia since 2013. It focuses on the areas between buildings and interfaces with the Green Star Buildings ratings in several areas such as stormwater design, landscaping, external lighting and the urban heat island effect. It features 5 categories including Governance, Liveability, Economic Prosperity, Environment and Innovation. It requires recertification every 5 years and can assess a masterplan before it is built. It is due for a major update (v2) in the near future to align with the trends responded to in Green Star Buildings such as electrification, upfront carbon and Net Zero.

Green Star Communities website

Green Star Interiors

The GBCA’s sustainability framework for building fit-outs was launched in 2014 with minor updates since. It follows the legacy Green Star categories for management, water, energy, transport etc. A major update called Green Star ‘Fit-Outs’ is anticipated next to align with the Green Star Buildings rating. Ratings are awarded from 4 to 6 stars for achieving points in meeting the credit criteria. It has an increased focus on materials compared to the overall building rating framework as a key difference.

Green Star Interiors website

LEED

LEED is the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) sustainability framework for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, founded in 1993. Similarly to BREEAM it has many parallels with Green Star but is US centric. It awards certifications on a scale from Bronze, through Silver and Gold to Platinum and has similar variants and applications. Compared with BREEAM and Green Star, LEED is the most globally adopted, with over 120,000 buildings participating (USGBC 2023). In Australia, some international headquarters and typologies such as airports and sports venues have chosen to adopt a LEED rating (USGBC 2017).

LEED website

One Planet Living

A framework developed by Bioregional in 2003 from the UK that recognises the fundamental planetary boundaries (emissions, air quality, land use etc) and uses these to define 10 principles to guide designs including health and happiness, equity and local economy, culture and community, land and nature, sustainable water use and beyond. It can be applied to mixed use developments, schools, businesses, cities and organisations with projects around the world including Australia.

One Plant Living website

STARS

The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) is intended for colleges and universities globally. It is a program of AASHE (The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education). Participation earns points that result in ‘seals’ representing sustainability leadership across a range including Reporter, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Registration is free to access the reporting tool but annual paid subscription is required to obtain Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum ratings that remain valid for 3 years.

STARS website

Conclusion

The sustainable building ratings available for application in the Australian context are varied with numerous overlapping aspects and ever-improving requirements.

The minimum standard is set by the NCC Section J provisions, and is limited to energy use while the highest sustainability standard is generally recognised to be represented by the Living Building Challenge which seeks to reach net-positive or regenerative outcomes.

Australian best practice tools

The Australian industry is mostly familiar with the Green Star rating tools, making it a relatively low risk and impactful option to apply when looking for third party certified outcomes beyond NCC minimum compliance and other state specific frameworks such as BESS and BASIX.

Green Star Performance in operation is widely adopted at the portfolio level, in combination with NABERS, which provides Australian commercial buildings a strong international reputation for high-performance operations. This strength is being expanded into other typologies with the growth of NABERS into retail, health, apartments etc. The emergence of the Build to Rent sector in Australia, which seeks to appeal to international investors using ESG criteria, should incentivise more sustainable building ratings being undertaken than was typical previously for multi-unit residential buildings.

International options

International rating tools such as the WELL Standard and Passivhaus are increasingly being adopted for incorporating globally leading sustainable design outcomes in more specific areas of sustainability such as occupant wellbeing for WELL and energy efficiency with indoor air quality for Passivhaus. WELL is widely adopted in the commercial office sector while Passivhaus is making most progress in residential developments, but both sustainable building ratings are applicable to any building type.

The risk of excess

Applying too many sustainable building ratings at once to a project can result in a significant amount of information to manage, so consideration of administration costs and focusing project teams’ efforts on key challenges is important. More focused but still holistic ratings such as the LBC’s 10 Imperatives within the ILFI Core rating may be worth considering if seeking to increase focus and impact without reducing the breadth of the sustainable design outcomes intended.

The need for clear and credible target setting

Project teams should work with clients to help them ascertain which sustainable building rating option is most appropriate and advocate for ‘best for project’ and ‘best for planet’ solutions. Consideration could also be given to the changes expected to help ensure that a building is future proofed. Working collaboratively and openly with sustainable building consultants or ESD consultants can be part of this process. Some clients may have their own in-house sustainability specialists who can support this dialogue.

Ultimately the sustainable building rating(s) should evidence the outcomes of the design as part of a verification strategy and the key design elements invested in to achieve this outcome should align with the client’s key drivers and be integrated into the design.

Back to top

References

• BESS (Built Environment Sustainability Standard) (2024) Subscriber Councils, BESS website.
• City of London (April 26 2023) Sustainable Development Planning Requirements, Planning, City of London website.
• City of Melbourne (2023) Participate Melbourne, City of Melbourne website.
• GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia) (April 2024) Certification Fees, GBCA website.
• GBCA (21 May 2023) Project Directory, GBCA website.
• GBCA (1 July 2016) Financial Transparency, Thought leadership, GBCA website.
• NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System) (2021-2022) Life of Program Statistics, NABERS Annual Report, NABERS website.
• NABERS (2023) NABERS website.
• USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) (9 July 2017) Melbourne Airport New Terminal 4, Projects, USGB website.
• USGBC (2023) Mission Vision, USGB website.

Back to top

Glossary

• BIPV (Building integrated photovoltaics) – Photovoltaic systems integrated into the building envelope, increasingly being applied to building facades. Fire risk assessments and reduced solar exposure levels are prominent challenges.
• Carbon – used as shorthand for Carbon Dioxide but used to describe Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG). Widespread internationally and increasingly being used in Australia, particularly for ‘Embodied Carbon’, ‘Upfront Carbon’ and ‘Zero Carbon’.
• ESD (Environment / Ecologically Sustainable Design / Development) – A term used widely in Australia without a consistent definition. Can be limited as doesn’t suggest a social or financial sustainability component. Author’s preference is for ‘Sustainable building consultant’ or similar instead of ESD consultant.
• ESG (Environmental Social Governance) – an established framework that approaches sustainability holistically across these three areas. It is typically used by investors and those seeking to engage investors with their communications.
• EV (Electric Vehicles) – primarily electric cars.
• IEQ (Indoor Environment Quality) – a term used to capture the various aspects of a building’s design that contribute to the internal comfort and health performance such as acoustics, daylight, thermal comfort, air quality etc.
• PV (Photovoltaic solar panels) – which combine to form an array. Typically featured on rooftops and generate renewable energy from the sun.

Back to top

Further reading

• The Australian Living Futures Institute (ALFI) is a good resource for local Living Building Challenge knowledge.
• The Australian Passivhaus Association (APHA) is a good resource for local Passivhaus knowledge.
• The Australian Sustainable Building Environment Council’s Ratings Snapshot provides an overview of rating tools used in Australia similar to this guide.
• Beyond Zero Emissions conduct and publish research in Australia on this subject matter
• The ClimateWorks Centre features numerous publications and resources online.
• The Energy Efficiency Council have many relevant resources and publications available online.
• The Fifth Estate publish industry news regularly pertaining to sustainable buildings and communities with frequent reference to the National Construction Code and sustainable building ratings.

Back to top

About the Author

Richard Stokes MEng (Hons) is a Green Star Accredited Professional (GSAP) and holds Living Futures Accreditation (LFA). He is the Sustainability Leader for Arup in Victoria and has worked in Australia since 2013 following starting his career in England in 2010.

He has worked internationally and has a detailed understanding of applying various sustainable building standards. He has presented his work and ideas at Green Cities, the NABERS Annual Conference, the AIRAH Future of HVAC, Green Building Day, the ParaGuru conference and the Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA).

Prior to moving to Australia, Richard was a BREEAM Assessor in the UK and also an Estidama Pearl Qualified Professional (PQP) in the UAE. He served on the Australian Passivhaus Association (APA) board between 2019 and 2020.

He has been recognised by Consult Australia winning the National Gold Award for Future Leader in 2019 as well as by the Living Futures Institute of Australia (LFIA) winning the Hummingbird Award in 2021. He was also nominated for Future Leader by AIRAH in Victoria in 2023.

Back to top

Appendix – Sustainable building rating tool details matrix

A summary of the sustainable building ratings in this guide is tabulated here to provide further details.