The aim of the TBL is to consider the impact of resource consumption and the value creation in

The aim of the TBL is to consider the impact of resource consumption and the value creation in

terms of integration among the three dimensions, assuming that each of them is equally
important.

terms of integration among the three dimensions, assuming that each of them is equally
important.

According to the Western Australia Council of Social Services [9], social sustainability is the
According to the Western Australia Council of Social Services [9], social sustainability is the

capacity to provide a good quality of life by creating healthy and livable communities based on

capacity to provide a good quality of life by creating healthy and livable communities based on

equity, diversity, connectivity, and democracy. This moral capital requires the maintenance and
the equity, diversity, connectivity, and democracy. This moral capital requires the maintenance
and the

replenishment of shared values and equal rights. Human capital is accepted today as part of
economic

replenishment of shared values and equal rights. Human capital is accepted today as part of

development [10]. In this regard, it is necessary to define economic sustainability as the optimal
economic development [10]. In this regard, it is necessary to define economic sustainability as
the

employment of existing resources, so that a responsible and beneficial balance can be achieved
over the

optimal employment of existing resources, so that a responsible and beneficial balance can be

long-term to reach the preservation of the capital. Economic sustainability concerns the real
economic

achieved over the long-term to reach the preservation of the capital. Economic sustainability

impact that a society has on its economic environment. The final definition to complete the triad
of

concerns the real economic impact that a society has on its economic environment. The final
 the TBL is environmental sustainability. It is defined as the capacity to use natural resources
without definition to complete the triad of the TBL is environmental sustainability. It is defined
as the capacity

exceeding their regenerative capacity and protecting the “natural capital” to prevent harm to
humans

to use natural resources without exceeding their regenerative capacity and protecting the “natural

and the environment. This means constraining the scale of the human economic system within
the

capital” to prevent harm to humans and the environment. This means constraining the scale of
the

biophysical limits of the overall ecosystem on which it depends; therefore, environmental

human economic system within the biophysical limits of the overall ecosystem on which it
depends;

is inherently linked with the concepts of sustainable production and sustainable consumption [9].
therefore, environmental sustainability is inherently linked with the concepts of sustainable

Going into the details of the TBL framework, and based on the three sustainability dimensions,

production and sustainable consumption [9].

a wide variety of rating systems have been developed for assessing the environmental
performance of

Going into the details of the TBL framework, and based on the three sustainability dimensions,

buildings, and these are currently available on the market.

a wide variety of rating systems have been developed for assessing the environmental
performance

These tools have been proposed by different research institutions and have been shaped to reflect

of buildings, and these are currently available on the market.

specific needs. Crawley and Aho [11] provided the first comparison between some of the major
These tools have been proposed by different research institutions and have been shaped to
 environmental assessment methods in 1999. They focused on the building sector and assessed
the

reflect specific needs. Crawley and Aho [11] provided the first comparison between some of the

environmental sustainability specifically by comparing the scopes of four schemes and

major environmental assessment methods in 1999. They focused on the building sector and

general trends. Later, a milestone in categorizing tools was carried out in 2008 by Haapio and

assessed the environmental sustainability specifically by comparing the scopes of four schemes
and

Viitaniemi [12] in which the schemes are classified by building types, users, phase of the life
cycle,

databases accessed, and the form in which the results are presented, such as graphs, tables,
grades, certificates, and reports. In the same year, Ding [13] proposed an overview of the role of
the building assessment methods in developing a sustainability index that might be used for
assessing projects and then for setting out a conceptual framework for appraising projects.
Recent works have been published by Berardi [14,15], Todd, et al. [16], Abdalla, et al. [17], and
provide a discussion on the topic from different perspectives.

The scope of this paper is to collect the widest range of available information from technical
manuals and official websites and via direct relationships with agents on the boards of companies
or institutions that created these assessment tools. The main contributions offered by this paper
are the analysis of many rating systems for buildings that were collected from different sources,
the reconstruction of their chronological evolution and geographical distribution worldwide, and
the thorough comparison and analysis of the six most studied and adopted rating systems.
Moreover, the scoring mechanisms of these six rating systems are presented.

The paper is divided into six sections. The first describes the concepts underlying the
environmental assessment schemes. The second section summarizes the two main approaches for
assessing building sustainability performance: rating systems and life cycle assessment.
Appendix A collects a large number of schemes and tools and provides information about their
year of introduction, promoting countries, and owners/administrators. The list of rating systems
listed in Appendix A may not be exhaustive, although a wide range is included. The material and
methods adopted to develop this paper are presented in Section 3. After the establishment of four
selection criteria, six rating systems were selected and are presented in detail in Section 4.
Section 5 is dedicated to the analysis and comparison of the six selected schemes based on
several criteria such as project type, building type, life cycle phase, and scopes, arranged
considering all the aspects involved in environmental performance evaluation. A summary of the
primary contributions of this paper is presented in the last section.