Following the extensive use of sustainability rating tools for buildings, similar tools for civil infrastructure have emerged. This study presents four industry-based infrastructure sustainability rating tools – Ceequal, Envision, Infrastructure Sustainability and Greenroads – and analyses how they assess and recognise performance. While other studies have examined the content and coverage of such tools, this study focuses on tool application – assessing a significant New Zealand-based state highway project by using each tool and comparing the results. The study explores biases within the tools and examines how each tool assesses and rewards projects and encourages project teams. The results show clear differences in the scores and award levels achieved from the same project practices and outcomes, thus encouraging infrastructure owners and tool users to challenge rating tool benchmarks and labels for sustainability. These findings highlight the dangers of direct comparisons across rating tools and the need for greater transparency in project-level sustainability reporting.

Sustainability consideration in designing, constructing, and operating civil infrastructure requires substantive action and yet progress is slow. This research examines the impact third-party infrastructure sustainability rating tools—specifically CEEQUAL, Envision, Greenroads, and Infrastructure Sustainability—have beyond individual project certification and considers their role in driving wider industry change. In this empirical study, engineering and sustainability professionals (n = 63) assess and describe their experience in using rating tools outside of formal certification and also the impact of tool use on their own practice and the practices of their home organizations. The study found that 77% of experienced users and 59% of infrastructure owners used the tools for purposes other than formal project certification. The research attests that rating tool use and indeed their very existence has a strong influence on sustainability awareness and practice within the infrastructure industry, providing interpretation of sustainability matters in ways that resonate with industry norms. The rating tools impact on individuals and their professional and personal practice, on the policies and practices of infrastructure-related organizations, and more widely on other industry stakeholders. The findings can be used to increase the value gained from sustainability rating tool use and to better understand the role such tools play in creating cultural change within the industry.

Sustainability rating tools for civil infrastructure including highways are increasing in use. The Ceequal scheme has been operating in the UK for around 14 years with over 360 project ratings awarded. The Greenroads, Envision and Infrastructure Sustainability schemes are growing in use in the USA and Australasia – collectively awarding close to 90 projects since 2012. What opportunities do these rating tools present for asset managers to better drive performance in terms of the social, environmental and economic impacts of infrastructure development? What progress have they made so far? This study draws on the analysis of the rating schemes used by industry today and, in particular, examines the realities of tool use by way of published case studies and interviews with rating tool users and asset owners in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and North America. Project data and user perspectives reveal details on the international use of rating tools and highlight aspects of tool bias and associated challenges in tool selection and comparison, access to performance benchmarking and the reporting of sustainability outcomes particularly for public infrastructure assets.

In an attempt to encourage and incentivise sustainable infrastructure practices, rating tools have been developed in different geographies. This paper explores the value of such tools in educating the engineering profession and shifting action within the infrastructure industry. The paper draws on a substantive international scale research programme, which examined multiple aspects of rating tool design and use, the context in which the tools operate, and the links between the tools and an evolving sustainability agenda. Research data from 119 civil infrastructure projects and 63 interviews with infrastructure owners and tool users provided significant findings on sustainability outcomes achieved, factors affecting outcomes and the wider influence of the tools. Rating tool influence was evident beyond rated projects in practitioner’s broader professional practice, in policies and practices within their home organisations and in the engineering profession and infrastructure sector more broadly. Research outputs include a conceptual framework on rating tool influence and a sustainability maturity model for infrastructure owner organisations. These outputs can assist asset owners, advisors and other professionals to develop strategies for addressing the challenges of sustainability in civil infrastructure development. In particular, the findings contextualise the tools as ‘processes of change’ at the individual, organisational and industry level.