Sharing indexes and heterogeneity update of green building rating systems: evidence of holistic comparative analysis

Different social, economic, and cultural contexts across countries have hindered the development of universally applicable green building rating systems. Incompatible scenarios, diverse market needs, and incomplete assessment frameworks often reduce these standards to basic checklists rather than effective evaluation tools. This weakens their ability to drive outcomes like resource conservation and emission reduction. To address these issues, this paper compares three major systems—BREEAM, LEED, and ESGB—through case studies. Key findings suggest the need to: (1) Refine product and component evaluation criteria, extend assessments across the green building supply chain, increase evaluation flexibility, and establish follow-up performance reviews; (2) Implement a dynamic weighting system incorporating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for fairer, goal-oriented evaluations; and (3) Streamline evaluation items, enhance indicator performance and operability, improve interpretation and management of quantitative data, integrate innovative technologies, emphasize early design stages, and refine methods for assessing multifunctional buildings.