Assessing the sustainability of retail buildings: the Portuguese method LiderA

Citation: Ferreira, A.; Pinheiro, M.; Brito, J.d.; Mateus, R. Assessing the Sustainability of Retail Buildings: The Portuguese Method LiderA. Sustainability 2022,14, 15577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142315577 Academic Editor: Ali Bahadori-Jahromi Received: 23 September 2022 Accepted: 11 November 2022 Published: 23 November 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Article Assessing the Sustainability of Retail Buildings: The Portuguese Method LiderA Ana Ferreira 1, Manuel Pinheiro 1,* , Jorge de Brito 1and Ricardo Mateus 2 1CERIS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal 2ISISE, School of Engineering, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal *Correspondence: manuel.pinheir[email protected] Abstract: Retail stores are among the building typologies with the highest consumption of natural resources. However, studies regarding the development of Building Sustainability Assessment methods for retail buildings are missing, despite their environmental, economic, and social importance. This study intends to address this gap in knowledge by (i) developing the Portuguese method LiderA for retail buildings, (ii) comparing LiderA to other BSA methods, and (iii) assessing results in two case studies. The development of LiderA for retail buildings took under consideration the indicators, weights, and specific guidelines of different BSA methods for retail buildings (namely LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB) and trends in the retail sector expressed in retailers’ sustainability reports and retailers’ associations. The most innovative aspects of the development of LiderA for retail buildings include the definition of benchmarks to assess sustainability performance in terms of Energy Intensity (EI), Carbon Intensity (CI), and Water Intensity (WI). Additionally, sustainable business operation practices were introduced in selected indicators as an alternative way to foster the roots of sustainability further down into the value chain, namely regarding ethical and sustainable product purchases, the protection of human rights, a code of conduct for suppliers, fair trade, product traceability, healthy food, sustainable agriculture, and local and organic products. The LiderA method, developed for retail buildings, can support designers, managers, and users in designing and managing more sustainable stores by providing benchmarks and best-practice thresholds for EI, CI, and WI. Given that global retailers operate hundreds of stores, the results show a key potential to increase the environmental performance of retail stores, supporting decision-making towards maximum energy efficiency and carbon neutrality. Keywords: LiderA; retail buildings; building sustainability assessment (BSA) methods; sustainable management 1. Introduction Building Sustainability Assessment (BSA) methods can be helpful to raise awareness and promote sustainable building practices in the built environment, minimise environmental impacts and natural resources consumption, optimise operational costs, and assist in providing greater health and well-being to users. They are also valuable methods in the decision-making process of designing buildings, both for design teams and stakeholders. In the European context, buildings account for about 50% of all extracted materials, 50% of the total energy consumption, 30% of the total water consumption, and 30% of waste generation [ 1 ]. Retail buildings, in particular, have one of the highest Energy Intensities (EI), particularly food retailers [ 2 ]. Similarly, retailers’ Carbon Intensity (CI) is considerable for direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [ 3 ]. In addition, the frequent refurbishment of retail stores, motivated mostly by market factors, leads to increased life cycle environmental impacts in retail buildings [ 4 ]. Hence, using BSA methods to assist in design choices for retail buildings is of the utmost importance. Nonetheless, few existent BSA methods address retail buildings in their portfolio. There is also little information Sustainability 2022,14, 15577. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315577 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 2 of 26 in the literature regarding how BSA methods can be customised for retail buildings or adapted to regional contexts. In the context of Portugal, the retail typology is responsible for 7% of total energy consumption in the Portuguese built environment, making it the second-largest energyconsumer sector [ 5 ]. The Portuguese construction industry is also responsible for up to 12.3% of total CO 2 eq emissions, the third most polluting sector [ 6 ]. Hence, the importance of Portuguese retail buildings in terms of environmental impact is important, like that of European retail buildings. The need for commercial buildings to become 70–80% more energy-efficient has been determined by the European Union (EU) in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) [ 7 ]. Sustainable buildings are essential for achieving the goals conveyed by the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan [ 8 ], which is also in line with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [ 9 ] and the Paris Agreement [ 10 ]. Concerted global political and social action under sustainable development has also pushed retailers to “go green” [ 11 ] and take responsibility for their environmental, social, and economic impact. The business paradigm shift to the triple bottom line concept [ 12 ] has also caused international retailers to gradually develop and implement high-performance building solutions in new or refurbished retail stores, recurring strategically to BSA methods to increase building sustainability performance. Following this international trend, Portuguese branches of international retailers, such as Leroy Merlin, Makro, and Decathlon [ 13 – 15 ], and large Portuguese international retailers, such as Jerónimo Martins [ 16 ], are increasingly seeking out sustainability certifications granted by BSA methods as a way of addressing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). This situation created a market need in Portugal that justifies developing the Portuguese voluntary certification method LiderA for retail buildings, which this study will explore. The development of BSA methods adapted to regional contexts is justified due to the specific priorities in terms of sustainability of each country, as a solution to bypass the need to comply with foreign regulation implied by international BSA methods, the need to translate documents into a foreign language or to adapt the project’s measurement units, which can lead to increased costs and workload [ 17 ]. Learning from international experience is, nevertheless, critical. Existing international BSA methods that address non-domestic building types, which include retail buildings, are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) [ 18 ], Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) [ 19 ], HKBEAM [ 20 ], SBTool [ 21 ], Green Star [ 22 ], NABERS [ 23 ], Haute QualitéEnvironmental (HQE) [ 24 ], German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) [ 25 ], and Swiss Sustainable Construction Standards (SNBS) [26]. However, studies comparing BSA methods for retail buildings, or the development of BSA methods for retail buildings, are missing, despite their environmental, economic, and social importance, as pointed out by Gimeno–Frontera et al. [27]. This study intends to address this gap in knowledge by reviewing the shortcomings of the most popular BSA methods for retail buildings and developing LiderA for this purpose. This research will also point out the current contribution of indicators’ weighting differences in the most popular BSA methods for retail buildings and differences in their usage-specific guidelines. By comparing LiderA with other methods, as well as the macroobjectives defined in Level(s), a common European voluntary reporting framework [ 17 ], it is possible to establish the contribution of LiderA to the existing body of knowledge and how the assessment of retail buildings can inform sustainable management. In this sense, benchmark metrics in terms of energy (EI), carbon (CI), and water intensity (WI) in the retail sector were created specifically for this new development of LiderA and tested in two case studies, in turn offering retailers, designers, managers, and decision-makers innovative environmental performance comparison metrics that can be of service to assist and guide in the operational stage of buildings. Hence, the findings of this research can be used by stakeholders to attain sustainable retail buildings with higher environmental performance at all stages of the life cycle of the building, achieve optimised operational costs, and increase users’ well-being. Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 3 of 26 Henceforth, in Section 2, a description of the methodology of the research is carried out, whereas, in Section 3, a review of the existing literature on the area of the present research is conducted, followed by a comparison of the proposed LiderA method for retail buildings to LEED, BREEAM, and Level(s) and by the presentation in detail of LiderA as a sustainability assessment method for retail buildings, validated by the case studies. Section 4includes the main findings of the research, including implications and limitations, whereas, in Section 5, the main contributions and future research suggestions are presented. 2. Materials and Methods To develop LiderA for retail buildings, a study of qualitative nature was carried out based on the literature review and on the analysis of the following data: (i) list of indicators, weights, and implementation manual of different BSA methods for retail buildings-namely LEED, BREEAM, and DGBN; (ii) trends for future developments in the retail sector, expressed either in retailer’s sustainability reports or in retailer’s associations and coalitions— namely RILA or the European Commission’ Retail Forum for Sustainability; (iii) Level(s), an EU voluntary framework designed for buildings sustainability assessment; (iv) local regulations and CEN and ISO standards. As a primary step in developing LiderA for retail buildings, it was decided not to adjust the weights of existing indicators but rather to adjust performance metrics and usage-specific guidelines in existing indicators, as according to previous research, indicators’ weighting differences in BSA methods for retail buildings have reduced the impact in the overall classification. Hence, the same methodology was applied in developing LiderA for retail buildings. Nevertheless, a stakeholder inquiry was carried out mostly to retail professionals and project teams (n = 64) to assess which sustainability areas were considered most important in building certification. The inquiry’s results did not alter the current weight structure in the original LiderA method (nor in the current development of the LiderA method for retail buildings). Still, they offered perspective on emerging stakeholder trends concerning the importance of sustainability criteria in BSA methods [ 28 ], namely on a more equal distribution of weights amongst criteria. Hence, four main steps were considered in this study. In step 1, the development of the LiderA tool for retail buildings, a critical review of the indicators that needed adaptation for retail buildings was performed. Table 1portrays this analysis, in which adapted indicators are marked in bold (about half of the total). In addition, the sum of weights given to indicators in the environmental, economic, social, and technical dimensions of sustainability was estimated to evaluate the distribution and impact of each dimension in the LiderA method. Later, the indicators of LEED, BREEAM, and DGBN were compared to assess the strengths and limitations of each BSA method regarding its applicability to retail buildings. LEED and BREEAM were chosen for being the oldest, most popular methods [ 17 ], and DGNB was selected for being a second-generation method [ 29 ], with emphasis on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. The manuals of LEED, BREEAM, and DGBN for this study were collected online [ 18 , 19 , 25 ], e.g., “LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction, dated April 2021”, “Technical Manual SD5078 BREEAM UK New Construction 2018 3.0 for Non-domestic Buildings”, and “DGNB New Buildings Criteria Set Version 2020 International”. They were compiled in a data repository to ensure permanent access to these manuals [ 30 ]. To further detail and compare the differences between LiderA, LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB for retail buildings, Table 2was created, in which weighting differences for retail buildings and usage-specific guidelines were disclosed. Since the analysed BSA methods have different structures, categories, and indicators, categories were grouped for comparison according to the core indicators defined by ISO 21929-1: 2011 [ 31 ], using the same methodology as other studies, such as Castro et al. [ 32 ]. Hence, the categories considered for comparison purposes were (1) management; (2) indoor environmental quality/well-being; (3) service quality; (4) energy; (5) transport; (6) water; (7) materials; (8) waste; (9) sustainable sites; and (10) pollution. Individual indicators were aggregated into these categories, where weights and descriptions of usagespecific guidelines for retail buildings were compiled. Grouping the indicators of LEED, Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 4 of 26 BREEAM, and DGNB under these ten categories was subject to the authors’ interpretation, according to the methodology of Cordero et al. [ 17 ]. For nomenclature purposes, indicators are defined as straightforward, measurable elements that need completion to achieve the score [ 17 ]. The research on existing BSA tools applicable to retail buildings identified the need to develop specific performance metrics for retail buildings, namely in terms of energy and water consumption and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. Hence, EI, CI, and WI benchmarks were created for retail stores [3] (Supplementary Material). Table 1. Structure of the proposed LiderA method. Dimension Category Category Weight Sustainability Indicator Indicator Weight Local integration (Habitat) Soil 4% P1—Territorial Organization 2% P2—Enhance Soil Functions 2% Natural Ecosystems 4% P3—Ecological valuation 2% P4—Ecosystem services 2% Landscape and built heritage 4% P5—Enhancement of the landscape 2% P6—Valuation of built heritage 2% Resources (Flows) Energy 15% P7—Passive performance * 5% P8—Energy systems * 5% P9—Carbon management * 5% Water 7% P10—Moderate water use * 5% P11—Local water management * 2% Materials 7% P12—Products and materials of responsible origin * 6% P13—Durability of built environments 1% Food production 1% P14—Contribution to local food production *1% Management of Secondary Loads and Resources Wastewater 2% P15—Wastewater management * 2% Waste 3% P16—Waste management * 3% Other loads 5% P17—Noise management * 3% P18—Atmospheric emissions management *1% P19—Other environmental loads management 1% Quality of service and resilience Quality of service 9% P20—Environmental quality * 7% P21—Safety and risk control (human) 2% Structural adaptation 6% P22—Climate adaptation and other natural hazards 3% P23—Resilience and adaptive evolution * 3% Socio-Economic Experiences Accessibility 4% P24—Active mobility * 3% P25—Efficient transport systems 1% Inclusive areas 4% P26—Inclusive built areas 3% P27—Inclusive spaces—Accessible and safe streets and public spaces 1% Social vitality 4% P28—Flexibility and complementarity of uses * 2% P29Contribution to community well-being (e.g., Health) * 1% P30—Social responsibility (and vitality) * 1% Amenities and culture 3% P31—Friendly Amenities 2% P32—Contribution to culture and identity * 1% Green and sustainable economy 7% P33—Low life cycle costs * 5% P34Contribution to circular economy * 1% P35—Contribution to environmental jobs * 1% Connectivity 3% P36—Connectivity and interaction (Digital Systems) 3% Sustainable use Sustainable management 5% P37—Information management for sustainable performance 3% P38—Maintenance and sustainability management 1% P39—Monitoring and governance * 1% Marketing and innovation 3% P40—Marketing and innovation * 3% * Indicators that have been specifically adapted to retail buildings. Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 5 of 26 Table 2. Main scoring differences and criteria specifications for retail buildings in LiderA, LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB. LiderA LEED BREEAM DGNB Category Indicator Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Management Life cycle cost Life cycle costs and energy demand reference values Flexibility and adaptability Sales operation resilience and modular structural mesh flexibility Structural and building services flexibility Commercial viability Quality of public transportation Information management for sustainable performance User manual for building systems Marketing and innovation Innovation toward sustainable performance Contribution to the circular economy Circular economy practices Contribution to environmental jobs Work flexibility and inclusion Indoor and Environmental Quality/WellBeing Visual comfort Daylight factor of 2% for 35% of the sales area Daylight factors of 2% or more in 35% of sales areas and 80% of other occupied areas. 2 credits ↑ (range 1–2) ** Daylight factors of 1% (from windows) to 2% (from skylights) Illuminance levels reference values Indoor air quality Low-emission construction products 4.5% ↓(range 4.5–5.4%) *** Quality of indoor and outdoor spaces 2.3% ↑(range 1.8–5.4%) *** Inclusive design Barrier-free toilets and staff entrances 4.5% ↑(range 0–4.5%) *** Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 6 of 26 Table 2. Cont. LiderA LEED BREEAM DGNB Category Indicator Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Service Quality Fire safety 2.9% ↑(range 2.5–2.9%) *** Sound insulation 0% ↓(range 0–1.9%) *** Quality of the building envelope 2.1% ↓(range 2.1–2.7%) *** Use and integration of building technology 2.1% ↑(range 1.9–2.1%) *** Ease of cleaning building components 1.4% ↑(range 1.3–1.4%) *** Ease of recovery and recycling 2.9% ↑(range 2.5–2.9%) *** Immissions control 1.4% ↑(range 0.6–1.4%) *** Mobility infrastructure 1.9% ↓(range 1.9–2.1%) *** Energy Refrigerant management CO2eq benchmarks Non-ozonedepleting refrigerants, annual refrigerant emissions < 15% and leak testing No refrigerant use, refrigerants with GWP < 10 and leek testing Optimised energy performance 18 credits ≈ (range 16–20) * Thermal comfort Thermal comfort for >50% of office spaces 4.5% ↑(range 3.6–4.5%) *** User control Ventilation and temperature control 2.3% ↑(range 0–2.3%) *** Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 7 of 26 Table 2. Cont. LiderA LEED BREEAM DGNB Category Indicator Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Energy Energy monitoring Audits, systems retrocommissioning, energy and water consumption monitoring, media data reporting, transparency in the value chain, and cyber security and data privacy Energy monitoring Energy-efficient cold storage Code of Conduct for Carbon Reduction Passive Performance South orientation of spaces, efficient windows, minimisation of air drafts and form factor of 0,52 Transport Bicycle facilities ≥2 bicycle storage/465 m2, ≥ 2 per building or for >5% of building occupants, and no less than +2 per building Bicycle programs for employees and customers 1 bicycle storage per 10 staff, 1 per 20 public car parking spaces Sustainable transport Green and efficient logistics Water Indoor water use reduction 7 credits ↑(range 4–7) * Potable water demand and wastewater volume calculated by users 2.4% ↑(range 2.3–2.4%) *** Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 8 of 26 Table 2. Cont. LiderA LEED BREEAM DGNB Category Indicator Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Usage-Specific Guidelines for Retail Buildings Differences in Weight Materials Products and materials of responsible origin Ethical purchase, code of conduct for suppliers, fair trade, animal welfare, traceability, sustainable farming, organic produce, local produce and healthy eating Waste Operational waste management Partnerships to reduce waste Dedicated space for recyclable waste volumes Sustainable Sites Neighbourhood Development location 16 credits ↑ (range 9–20) * Contribution to local food production Meals for employees based on local produce Pollution Local water management Parking lots with pollutant control * score variations in LEED concern the following building types: schools, retail, data centres, warehouses and distribution centres, hospitality, and healthcare. ** score variations in BREEAM concern building types: office, industrial, retail, education, healthcare, prison, law court, residential institution (long and short stay), non-residential institution, and assembly and leisure. *** score variations in DGNB concern building types: office, educational, residential, hotel, consumer market, shopping centres, department stores, logistics and production. ↑ more importance is given to retail buildings than to other building typologies. ↓ less importance is given to retail buildings than to other building typologies. ≈ average importance is given to retail buildings regarding other building typologies. Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 9 of 26 In step 2, retail desk research, trends of the retail sector were scrutinised based on data retrieved from RILA [ 33 ] and the European Commission’s Retail Forum for Sustainability [ 34 , 35 ]. The main findings of desk research were considered in adapting LiderA for retail buildings. They assisted in the fine-tuning of usage-specific guidelines in the following indicators: “P9—Carbon management”; “P10—Moderate water use”; “P11—Local water management”; “P12—Products and materials of responsible origin”; “P14—Contribution to local food production”; “P16—Waste management”; “P20—Environmental quality”; “P23—Resilience and adaptive evolution”; “P24—Active mobility”; “P28—Flexibility and complementarity of uses”; “P30—Social responsibility (and vitality)”; “P33—Low life cycle costs”; “P34—Contribution to a circular economy”; “P35—Contribution to environmental jobs”; “P39—Monitoring and governance”; “P40—Marketing and innovation”. In step 3, LiderA, LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB were compared to Level(s), considering six major areas: greenhouse gas emissions, resource efficiency, water use, health and comfort, resilience and adaptation, and cost and value (Table 3). The link between sustainability assessment and sustainability management in the operation stage is also discussed in Section 4.4. Table 3. Correspondence between the LiderA, LEED, BREEAM, DGNB, and Level(s) macroobjectives. Level(s) Macro-Objectives Level(s) Indicators LiderA LEED BREEAM DGNB 1. Greenhouse gas emissions along a buildings life cycle 1.1 Use stage energy performance (kWh/m2/yr) yes yes yes yes 1.2 Life cycle Global Warming Potential (CO2eq./m2/yr) yes yes yes yes 2. Resource-efficient and circular material life cycles 2.1 Bill of quantities, materials, and lifespans yes yes yes yes 2.2 Construction and Demolition waste yes yes yes yes 2.3 Design for adaptability and renovation yes yes yes yes 2.4 Design for deconstruction no no yes yes 3. Efficient moderate water use resources 3.1 Use stage water consumption (m3/occupant/yr) yes yes yes yes 4. Healthy and comfortable spaces 4.1 Indoor air quality yes yes yes yes 4.2 Time out of thermal comfort range no no yes yes 4.3 Lighting yes yes yes yes 4.4 Acoustics yes yes yes yes 5. Adaption and resilience to climate change 5.1 Life cycle tools: scenarios for projected future climatic conditions yes no yes yes 5.2 Increased risk of extreme weather yes no yes yes 5.3 Increased risk of flooding yes no yes yes 6. Optimised life cycle cost and value 6.1 Life cycle costs (€/m2/yr) yes no yes yes 6.2 Value creation and risk factors yes yes yes yes In step 4, case study assessment, the sustainability assessment of the two case studies was performed to verify whether the proposed method LiderA for retail buildings could assist in rectifying class attribution with regards to the environmental performance of retail buildings by comparing the score obtained in the proposed LiderA method for retail buildings to the original LiderA method. For each case study, visits were made to the store accompanied by a retail company’s technical manager and a store manager. During these visits, data were gathered that included energy and water bills for the previous 12 months, operation waste production for the previous year, energy certificate, store architectural projects, bill of quantities for the tender procedure, contractor’s winning bid, and pictures Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 16 of 26 3.2.6. Environmental Quality (P20) Under this indicator, several well-being attributes are assessed, such as natural ventilation and indoor air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, and acoustic comfort. In developing LiderA for retail buildings, a natural daylight factor of 2% in at least 35% of the sales area was considered. Here, class attribution improves according to the percentage of natural daylight in sales areas, offices, and receiving areas. BREEAM also supports a daylight factor greater than 2% in 35% of the sales area and at least 200 lux point daylight illuminance for 2650 h/y. In contrast, DGNB recommends daylight factors of 1–2% and visual contact to the exterior in up to 50% of the sales area. Regarding artificial lighting, DGNB allows for very high illuminance levels in some retail subtypes (i.e., 1500 lux (39 w/m 2 ) for luxury item stores). In contrast, in LiderA, the Passive House Standard for lighting is credited, ranging from 15–18 W/m 2 in existing retail stores and 10 W/m 2 in new stores [ 77 ]. The completion of credits related to passive design measures to enhance natural lighting is also acknowledged in LiderA. Concerning thermal comfort, the possibility of user control for ventilation systems and room temperature is accounted for in LEED and DGNB, just as in LiderA. 3.2.7. Resilience and Adaptive Evolution (P23) In adjusting this indicator for retail buildings, LiderA considered attributes enabling the continuity of sales operations during a crisis. In addition to water supply, energy supply, seismic resilience, and adaptation to extreme weather that was already covered in the original LiderA method, operational resilience in terms of assurance of stock, presence of employees, and continuity of information systems was considered, which is innovative compared to LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB. 3.2.8. Active Mobility (P24) This indicator promotes low-impact mobility by supporting pedestrian and bike pathways, car-sharing and transfer services, hybrid or ecological fuel vehicles, exclusive parking for ecological vehicles and bicycles, and electric vehicle charging stations. In developing LiderA for retail buildings, three additional items were considered for credit allocation, namely the transport of goods in electric vehicles or vehicles with ecological fuels, efficient logistics (optimised routes and reverse logistics), and online shopping with ecological delivery systems. Bicycle storage is quantified in LEED and BREEAM for retail buildings but not in LiderA. Portuguese national regulation states that bicycle storage must be provided according to demand, conferring design freedom to quantify demand and choose storage design options according to each project’s needs. 3.2.9. Flexibility and Complementarity of Uses (P28) This indicator fosters the flexibility of spaces, namely through modular areas, adaptable to different uses. In the development of LiderA for retail buildings, three additional points were considered for credit allocation, namely a modular structural mesh with a minimum of 8 m between axles, additional energy connection points in more than 50% of the building, and the availability of buffer areas, such as storefronts, entrances, or tenant areas, that can be converted into other uses. Similarly, in DGNB, the possibility of increasing the building’s bearing load and reserve capacity in building services is referred to. 3.3. Case Studies Case studies’ sustainability assessment allowed verification of the effectiveness of the proposed method LiderA for retail buildings. Case study 1 is a food store, a 21,317 m 2 store in Lisbon, Portugal, part of the top global Cash & Carry Metro Group (Figure 4). The store has two main entrances, one in the food department and another in the non-food department. In the latter are located the reception, information desk, and restrooms. The mezzanine on the first floor is currently used as an independent gym. Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 17 of 26 Figure 4. Sales typology plan of the retail food unit in Lisbon (case study 1). Case study 2 is a 16,473 m 2 non-food store in Algarve, Portugal, part of the top global Do-it-yourself retail group Adeo (Figure 5). The store entrance is through each of the two levels of underground parking. The sales floor comprises cashiers, reception, cafeteria, restrooms, an information desk, and a cafeteria client sanitary facilities. Above the storefront is a mezzanine with offices and staff rooms. Figure 5. Sales typology level plan of the retail non-food unit in Algarve (case study 2). Case studies 1 and 2 are typically large, big-box stores in their correspondent food and non-food categories for international food retailers. They are relevant and representative as Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 18 of 26 case studies due to their branding attractiveness, urban location, store size, store layout, and the choice of building solutions and building materials. Case study 1 scored class A in the assessment made with LiderA for retail buildings, meaning that the store has an environmental performance of about 50% higher than current practice. In contrast, case study 2 scored class A+, meaning that the store has an environmental performance 75% higher than current practice. In both stores, the proposed method LiderA for retail buildings enabled class upgrades in several indicators. 4. Discussion 4.1. Comparison of LiderA and LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB for Retail Buildings A key point to be discussed is the findings of the validation study and determining to what extent the developed method is effective and which features should be removed, added, or adjusted. Compared to LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB for retail buildings, LiderA conforms to most usage-specific adaptations considered in these methods and includes more adaptations to other indicators, making LiderA overall a more adjusted BSA method for retail buildings. Indeed, only three indicators have user-specific guidelines for retail buildings in LEED, namely “Bicycle Facilities” (set storage spaces per building), “Refrigerant Management” (exclusive use of non-ozone-depleting refrigerants and test leaking), and “Thermal Comfort” (individual thermal comfort controls). As for BREEAM, usage-specific guidelines for retail buildings are found in six indicators: “Visual Comfort” (35% of the sales area to have a daylight factor greater than 2% and at least 200 lux point daylight illuminance for 2650 h/y); “Energy Monitoring” (in sales area, storage, offices and tenant units); “Energy Efficient Cold Storage” and “Impact of Refrigerants” (preference to no refrigerant use and gas leak detection systems); “Operational Waste” (dedicated space for recyclable waste volumes); and “Sustainable Transport Measures” (set bicycle storage spaces per building). Regarding DGNB, usage-specific guidelines differences are found in eight indicators: “ENV2.2 Potable Water Demand and Wastewater Volume” (water demand and wastewater volume calculated by employees and customers); “ECO1.1 Life-Cycle Cost” (building life-cycle cost calculation in € /m 2 /y); “ECO2.1 Flexibility and Adaptability” (increase the building’s bearing load and reserve in capacity in building services); “ECO2.2 Commercial Viability” (linked to the quality of public transportation); “SOC1.2 Indoor Air Quality” (low-emission construction products); “SOC1.4 Visual Comfort” (daylight factors of 1% to 2% and visual contact to the exterior in up to 50% of the sales area); ”SOC 1.5 User Control” (individual room temperature control); and “SOC2.1 Design for All” (barrier-free toilets and staff entrances). In this comparison with DGNB, the authors discuss the significance of life cycle aspects and their evaluation. However, the proposed method seems to lack a good life cycle approach that is proven to be so crucial in retail environments. When compared to DGNB, this method is more robust in the indicators “ENV 1.1 Building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)” and “ECO1.1 Life-Cycle Cost” than LiderA is. These are also the indicators that weigh the most in DGNB (about 10% each). LCA evaluation in DGNB is extensive and based on three possibilities: (i) LCA in planning, in which potential environmental impacts of building components and energy use are compared, both for the construction and operation stages; (ii) LCA optimisation, in which alternative solutions are compared for better decision making; and (iii) DGNB LCA calculation, made according to DIN EN 15978. Contrarily, in LiderA, environmentally certified building materials are promoted, but impacts from energy or building materials do not need to be calculated. Nevertheless, extensive LCA calculations, like those advocated by DGBN, may cause hindrances to the certification process and deter stakeholders from using it [39]. Regarding Life Cycle Costs (LCC) in DGNB, tables with life-cycle cost calculations are provided for energy, cleaning, or maintenance across the different life cycle stages of retail buildings (in EUR/gross floor area/year). In contrast, in LiderA, life cycle costs are addressed in the indicator “P33—Low life cycle costs”. Here, the goal is to promote lower-cost solutions for building materials and services under a life cycle perspective, Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 19 of 26 which are then expressed in EUR/m 2 /y or the percentage of cost reduction compared to existing or standard solutions. Nevertheless, in DGNB, life cycle costs are addressed in detail, and data on average operational and maintenance costs can benefit stakeholders. Even though cost knowledge does not promote increased environmental performance, it does support decision-making processes. Therefore, the presentation of similar cost metrics for Portuguese retail stores could be considered in future developments of the LiderA method. Likewise, in future developments, LiderA could incorporate more indicators related to the economic dimension addressing value creation in marketability, service life, and community service [ 72 ]. In addition, in LiderA, just as in LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB, demolition and disposal strategies remain largely unaddressed, which could be important due to the frequent refurbishment cycles that retail stores undergo. Hence, integrating demolition and disposal strategies in future developments of LiderA presents an opportunity to foster a closed-loop building life cycle perspective concerning construction waste [72]. However, the development of LiderA for the retail buildings is innovative in terms of the benchmark performance metrics developed for this building typology regarding EI, CI, and WI and concerning the introduction of sustainable business operation elements as an alternative way to assess sustainability. These operational practices awarded in LiderA are expressed in retailers’ sustainability reports and associations (such as RILA or the Retail Forum for Sustainability) as relevant sustainability issues. They include, for example, the consideration of ethical and sustainable product purchases, the protection of human rights, a code of conduct for suppliers, fair trade, product traceability, healthy food, sustainable agriculture, and local and organic products. Despite not being directly related to the building, these practices promote sustainability on a larger scale, rooting sustainability further down into the value chain. Healthy food, for instance, promotes psychological well-being, a dimension often overlooked in BSA methods as recognised in the literature [ 78 ]. These practices are also in line with the Portuguese roadmap for carbon neutrality [ 79 ], namely shared mobility services, reverse logistics and fleet autonomy (P24— Active mobility), reduction of energy consumption (P9—Carbon management), sustainable farming, reduction of cement use and increase of tinder use for superstructure elements (P12—Products and materials of responsible origin), reduction in the use of graphic paper, of food waste, and plastic and increased use of recycled materials and compost (P16— Waste management). Other examples of sustainable business operation practices can be found in indicators “P14—Contribution to local food production”, “P34—Contribution to a circular economy”, “P35—Contribution to environmental jobs”, and “P39—Monitoring and governance”, which are compiled in the Supplementary File (Table S1). 4.2. Correspondence to Level(s) Framework BSA methods in Europe and throughout the world are market-oriented and national policy-driven, and there is a lack of an international standardised approach to measuring the sustainability of buildings [ 80 ]. This context is precisely what has driven the European Commission (EC) to launch Level(s) as a sustainability reporting framework aiming at improving buildings’ sustainability [ 1 , 17 ], with a set of indicators and metrics that consider the full life cycle of the building. Rather than defining prerequisites, Level(s) is based on progressive steps of sustainable performance, from beginners to experts. Thus, at level 1, a “common performance assessment” is proposed, in which measurement units and reference calculation methods are defined. At level 2, a “comparative performance assessment” is suggested, in which projects can be benchmarked. Finally, at level 3, an “optimised performance assessment” is suggested, in which building performance improvements are simulated through building modelling [ 81 ]. Level(s) can also be used directly or indirectly through another BSA similar to the G17 Alliance. Level(s) is structured around six macro-objectives to achieve EU common policy goals on climate change and sustainable development. These are (i) Greenhouse gas emissions along a buildings life cycle, (ii) Resource-efficient and circular material life cycles, (iii) Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 20 of 26 Efficient use of water resources, (iv) Healthy and comfortable spaces, (v) Adaptation and resilience to climate change, and (vi) Optimised life cycle cost and value. When comparing LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB to Level(s), DGNB and BREEAM address all six macro-objectives and all its indicators, whereas LEED does not address several indicators in five of the six macro-objectives, namely “2.4 Design for deconstruction”, “3.1 Use stage water consumption (m 3 /occupant/y)”, “4.1 Indoor air quality”, “4.2 Time out of thermal comfort range”, “4.3 Lighting”, “4.4 Acoustics”, “5.1 Life cycle tools: scenarios for projected future climatic conditions”, “5.2 Increased risks of extreme weather”, “5.3 Increased flooding risk”, “6.1 Life cycle costs (EUR/m 2 /y)”. This is possibly due to LEED being the oldest and most internationally implanted BSA method, in which the focus on the environmental dimension of sustainability is more apparent [ 17 ]. As for LiderA, it is aligned with all six macro-objectives defined by Level(s) but does not fully address indicators “2.4 Design for deconstruction” and “4.2 Time out of thermal comfort range”. In addition, life cycle costs in LiderA are considered from a comparative perspective, whereas DGNB is extensively detailed. BSA methods, including LiderA, are therefore challenged to evolve in the future to bridge the areas where they are less aligned to Level(s). 4.3. Case Study Assessment The second sustainability assessment made with the proposed method LiderA for retail buildings confirmed that criteria customised for retail buildings enabled the improvement of classification in several indicators for both case studies when compared to the original assessment performed under the general version of the LiderA method (LiderA V3), namely in P7—Passive performance, P9—Carbon management, P12—Products and materials of responsible origin, and P24—Active mobility. In indicator P7—Passive performance, the class upgrade was mostly due to introducing an extra parameter valuing daylight strategy in more than 80% of the building area. In indicator P9—Carbon management, the class upgrade was possible using the created CI benchmarks for retail buildings, which segmented carbon profiling in global retail. This innovation is of the utmost importance because CI levels in retail stores are influenced not only by the energy consumed but also, quite importantly, by GHG emissions from refrigeration and HVAC systems [ 82 ]. In addition, the EI of the retail sector is very high, leading to higher CI levels [ 83 ]. Previous class attribution in this indicator was referenced mainly according to the percentage of energy consumption from renewable sources, which disregarded, for example, annual fugitive HFC emissions from refrigeration systems. As for indicator P12—Products and materials of responsible origin, the class upgrade was possible due to introducing extra parameters regarding ethical and sustainable purchases in business operations. In effect, another innovative aspect of the development of LiderA for retail buildings is its contribution to bridging the current dichotomy between retail building sustainability assessment and operation sustainability assessment, which is extensible to retail’s value chain. In this sense, as indirect GHG emissions from the retail sector are considerably higher than direct emissions—a factor of 7 for its supply chain and a factor of 3 for its products’ end life [ 84 ]—and because of the influence of retail in suppliers and consumers, it is important to foster sustainability more deeply into the value chain and in consumer choice, namely by advocating the protection of human rights, a code of conduct for suppliers, fair trade, product traceability, healthy food, sustainable agriculture, or local and organic products. Generally, these practices align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals [ 9 ]. They are also in alignment with other regulatory instruments, such as the European Union’s roadmap for a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050 [ 85 ] and the Portuguese roadmap for carbon neutrality for 2050 [ 86 ]. Likewise, parameters that include transporting goods in vehicles with ecological or electric fuels, efficient logistics (including optimised routes and reverse logistics), and online shopping with eco-friendly home delivery were added to the indicator P24—Active mobility, which allowed for class improvement in both case studies. Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 21 of 26 In case study 1, the development of LiderA for retail buildings also allowed class upgrades in the indicators P28—Flexibility and complementarity of uses, P31—Friendly Amenities, and P39—Monitoring and governance. Whereas in the indicator P28—Flexibility and complementarity of uses, additional credits were granted due to the existence of additional criteria valuing large spans in modular structural meshes, in the indicator P31—Friendly Amenities, additional credits were granted due to the radius of influence of amenities being enlarged to 1000 km. In the indicator P39—Monitoring and governance, the introduction of parameters related to sustainable business operation, such as transparency in the value chain, cyber security, and data privacy, allowed too for a class upgrade. In case study 2, the class upgrade was possible in indicator P10—Moderate water due to the introduction of extra parameters regarding sensors or timers on taps, flowmeters in flushers, and water-saving ultra-rinse guns for floor cleaning. The results of the two case studies confirmed that criteria customised for retail buildings improved the overall sustainability assessment classification of the analysed stores, reinforcing the validity of adjusting BSA methods to retail buildings. 4.4. From Sustainable Assessment to Sustainable Management Building sustainable performance depends not only on design but also on building use and management [ 87 ]. Therefore, in the path towards higher environmental performance, tools are needed to assess and quantify the sustainable performance of retail stores to support users and managers, particularly in the usage stage. In this sense, the developed method LiderA for retail buildings can contribute to achieving a higher sustainable performance even for buildings in use. It can also be a method used to improve the organisation of information related to sustainability in the building and inform and influence users and stakeholders. Through its benchmarks and best-practice thresholds for EI, CI, and WI, as well as its extensive inventory of high-performance, sustainable solutions that can lead to superior environmental performance, LiderA can highly position the energy, carbon, and water performance of retail buildings, giving users and management insight regarding tangible margins for further improvement. In this sense, the proposed method, LiderA, for retail buildings represents a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the assessment of this typology of buildings. Therefore, it has successfully detected significant features that other analysed methods did not identify, leading to more sustainable design solutions in the retail sector. When applied in the construction and operational stage, LiderA can promote the efficient liaison of building data between the project team, contractors, final users, and managers. Sustainability assessment through LiderA can be used as a bird’s-eye view framework, identifying new sustainability aspects to consider in retail buildings and providing performance improvement goals in the short, medium, and long term that can lead, for instance, to net zero or positive energy buildings. The building assessment through LiderA can serve as a base to implement a full sustainability strategy in retail environments, linking sustainability assessment to sustainable management [ 88 ] with implications for energy, carbon, and water. The results of the two case studies confirmed that criteria customised for retail buildings enabled class upgrades in adjusted indicators and improved the sustainability assessment classification of the analysed stores, reinforcing the validity of adjusting BSA methods to retail buildings. 4.5. Implications BSA methods (and in this specific case, the developed LiderA method for retail buildings) can effectively and efficiently assess the environmental performance of buildings and identify improvement opportunities to building performance; this was evident in the sustainability assessment of the two case studies, which resulted in the possibility of increasing both stores’ sustainability performance by over 50%, in turn translating into economic, social, and environmental gains. Building certification can therefore act as a key Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 22 of 26 performance indicator of environmental management in retail, validating BSA methods as useful tools for sustainable business management and further encouraging its use. The EI, CI, and WI benchmarks developed for LiderA for retail buildings have been demonstrated to be valuable, accurate tools for the definition of “best practice” and “good practice” threshold levels for energy consumption, carbon emissions, and water use in retail buildings, enabling a more efficient natural resources management in the retail sector and providing knowledge regarding allowable limits for resources’ use. Given that each studied retailer operates hundreds of stores, EI and CI results show a key potential to boost EI and CI in the retail sector, in either new stores or refurbishing processes. The variability found in this research shows that according to “best practice”, it is feasible to reduce EI in retail stores by a factor of 3 and CI by a factor of 6, which would impact decisively and positively the environmental performance of retail. The same is true for water management, as the variability of results in WIA shows a potential to reduce water consumption by a factor of 3, which would positively influence the direct water footprint of the retail sector. By bridging the dichotomy between building sustainability assessment and operation sustainability assessment, the promotion of sustainability at a larger scale is achieved, which is the end goal of BSA methods. This was the second contribution of the development of LiderA for retail buildings, extending sustainability assessment to business operations, intending to push sustainability further into retail’s value chain. 4.6. Limitations Comparing BSA methods is subjective since each method follows different weighting structures that are not directly harmonised. The parameters’ selection for LiderA for retail buildings and their weights were subject to the authors’ interpretation, according to the rationale described in Section 2. Finally, only three BSA methods applicable to retail buildings were compared, and findings could be broadened if more methods were analysed. 5. Conclusions Compared to other BSA methods developed for retail buildings, such as LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB, LiderA for retail buildings is in line with the adjustments suggested by these methods, namely in refrigerant management, lighting, thermal comfort, and soft mobility principles. In addition, the proposed method includes adaptations covering a more comprehensive list of indicators, making it a more adjusted BSA method for retail buildings, supporting an integral view of sustainability principles applied in the retail sector. The results of the two case studies confirmed that criteria customised for retail buildings enabled class upgrades in adjusted indicators and improved the sustainability assessment classification of the analysed stores, reinforcing the validity of adjusting BSA methods to retail buildings. The most innovative aspect of LiderA for retail buildings is the development of benchmarks to assess sustainability performance in EI, CI, and WI. Additionally, sustainable business operation practices were introduced in selected indicators, namely the consideration of ethical and sustainable product purchases, the protection of human rights, a code of conduct for suppliers, fair trade, product traceability, healthy food, sustainable agriculture, and local and organic products, to promote sustainability in a larger scale, deepening the roots of sustainability further down into the value chain. The LiderA method, developed for retail buildings, can support designers, managers, and users in achieving higher environmental performance by providing benchmarks and best-practice thresholds for EI, CI, and WI, which provide insight into tangible margins for improvement in energy, carbon, and water performance. Given that global retailers operate hundreds of stores, the results show a key potential to increase the environmental Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 23 of 26 performance of retail stores in either new or refurbished stores, supporting decision-making towards maximum energy efficiency and carbon neutrality. Future research should include the introduction of LCC and LCA studies in BSA tools, given the increasing development of these tools to support decision-making processes. Circular Economy goals should also be considered, namely by promoting modular construction or prefabrication, demolition, and disposal strategies, thereby fostering the opportunity to integrate a closed-loop building life cycle perspective into the BSA method. Additionally, indicators of community service and psychological well-being should be progressively incorporated into BSA methods to further increase sustainability assessment in immaterial dimensions. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142315577/s1, Table S1: LiderA Thresholds. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F. and M.P.; methodology, A.F.; validation, M.P., J.d.B. and R.M.; formal analysis, A.F. and M.P.; investigation, A.F.; resources, A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F.; writing—review and editing, M.P., J.d.B. and R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work was supported by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia [grant number PD/BD/127852/2016] under the Doctoral Program EcoCoRe—Eco-Construction and Rehabilitation. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in Santos Ferreira, Ana Sofia (2022), “LiderA for retail buildings stakeholder inquiry”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/ y2hdgcgydd.1, in Santos Ferreira, Ana Sofia (2022), “Comparing LiderA, LEED, BREEAM, DGNB and LEVEL(S)”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/89g9kdvwcx, in Santos Ferreira, Ana Sofia (2022), “Combined carbon and energy intensity benchmarks for sustainable retail stores”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/ww29xrsv56.2 and in Santos Ferreira, Ana Sofia (2022), “Water intensity benchmarks for sustainable retail stores”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/byxt34g25h.2. Acknowledgments: Support from CERIS and Instituto Superior Técnico is also acknowledged. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. References 1. European Commission Level(S). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/levels_en (accessed on 6 September 2021). 2. Galvez-Martos, J.-L.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H. Identified Best Environmental Management Practices to Improve the Energy Performance of the Retail Trade Sector in Europe. Energy Policy 2013,63, 982–994. [CrossRef] 3. Ferreira, A.; Pinheiro, M.D.; de Brito, J.; Mateus, R. Combined Carbon and Energy Intensity Benchmarks for Sustainable Retail Stores. Energy 2018,165, 877–889. [CrossRef] 4. Chau, C.K.; Leung, T.M.; Ng, W.Y. A Review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on Buildings. Appl. Energy 2015,143, 395–413. [CrossRef] 5. PORDATA Consumo de Energia Eléctrica: Total e Por Sector de Actividade Económica. Available online: https://www.pordata. pt/DB/Portugal/Ambiente+de+Consulta/Tabela (accessed on 18 October 2021). 6. PORDATA Emissões de Gases Com Efeito de Estufa: Por Alguns Sectores de Emissões de Gases (%). Available online: https://www.pordata.pt/Europa/Emiss~oes+de+gases+com+efeito+de+estufa+por+alguns+sectores+de+emiss~oes+de+ gases+(percentagem)-1724 (accessed on 18 October 2021). 7. European Parliament Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0031 (accessed on 30 January 2017). 8. European Union Circular Economy Action Plan. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/circulareconomy-action-plan_en (accessed on 14 October 2021). 9. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (accessed on 30 January 2020). 10. United Nations. Adoption of the Paris Agreement-Paris Agreement Text English; United Nations. 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2022). Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 24 of 26 11. Macchion, L.; Da Giau, A.; Caniato, F.; Caridi, M.; Danese, P.; Rinaldi, R.; Vinelli, A. Strategic Approaches to Sustainability in Fashion Supply Chain Management. Prod. Plan. Control 2018,29, 9–28. [CrossRef] 12. Elkington, J. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. Calif. Manage. Rev. 1994,36, 90–100. [CrossRef] 13. Leroy Merlin Relatórios de Sustentabilidade | Sustentabilidade-Leroy Merlin Portugal. Available online: https://www. leroymerlin.pt/pt/relatorios-sustentabilidade (accessed on 20 October 2021). 14. Metro Group METRO Corporate Responsibility Progress Report 2016/17. Available online: https://reports.metroag.de/ corporate-responsibility-report/2016-2017/ (accessed on 19 October 2018). 15. Decathlon Sustainability Report. Available online: http://sustainability.decathlon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ Decathlon-SD-report_2015_vEN.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2017). 16. Jerónimo Martins A Nossa Estratégia de Responsabilidade. Available online: https://www.jeronimomartins.com/pt/ responsabilidade/nossa-estrategia-de-responsabilidade/ (accessed on 20 October 2021). 17. Cordero, A.S.; Melgar, S.G.; Márquez, J.M.A. Green Building Rating Systems and the New Framework Level(s): A Critical Review of Sustainability Certification within Europe. Energies 2019,13, 66. [CrossRef] 18. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Home | LEED Lookbook. Available online: https://leed.usgbc.org/ (accessed on 14 October 2021). 19. BREEAM BREEAM-Sustainability Assessment Method. Available online: https://www.breeam.com/ (accessed on 14 October 2021). 20. HK BEAM BEAM Plus Existing Buildings | HKGBC. Available online: https://www.hkgbc.org.hk/eng/beam-plus/beam-plusexisting-buildings/index.jsp (accessed on 14 October 2021). 21. GBTool GBC2000-GBTool Overview. Available online: http://www.iisbe.org/gbc2k/gbtool/gbtool-main.htm (accessed on 14 October 2021). 22. Greenstar Greenstar-Welcome. Available online: https://www.greenstar.ie/ (accessed on 14 October 2021). 23. Nabers NABERS. Available online: https://www.nabers.gov.au/ (accessed on 14 October 2021). 24. Environmentalle, H.Q. Haute QualitéEnvironmentalle. Available online: https://www.behqe.com/# (accessed on 14 October 2021). 25. German Sustainable Building Council DGNB System-Sustainable and Green Buildingn. Available online: https://www.dgnbsystem.de/en/ (accessed on 14 October 2021). 26. Standards, S.S.C. SNBS Bâtiment. Available online: https://www.nnbs.ch/fr/snbs-batiment (accessed on 14 October 2021). 27. Gimeno-Frontera, B.; Mainar-Toledo, M.D.; Sáez de Guinoa, A.; Zambrana-Vasquez, D.; Zabalza-Bribián, I. Sustainability of Non-Residential Buildings and Relevance of Main Environmental Impact Contributors’ Variability. A Case Study of Food Retail Stores Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018,94, 669–681. [CrossRef] 28. Ferreira, S.; Sofia, A. LiderA for Retail Buildings Stakeholder Inquiry, Mendeley Data, V1 2022. Available online: https: //doi.org/10.17632/y2hdgcgydd.1 (accessed on 11 September 2022). 29. Ali, H.H.; Al Nsairat, S.F. Developing a Green Building Assessment Tool for Developing Countries-Case of Jordan. Build. Environ. 2009,44, 1053–1064. [CrossRef] 30. Ferreira, S.; Sofia, A. Comparing LiderA, LEED, BREEAM, DGNB and LEVEL(S), Mendeley Data, V2. 2022. Available online: https://doi.org/10.17632/89g9kdvwcx.2 (accessed on 20 August 2022). 31. 21929-1:2011, I. ISO 21929-1:2011-Sustainability in Building Construction-Sustainability Indicators-Part 1: Framework for the Development of Indicators and a Core Set of Indicators for Buildings. Available online: https://inen.isolutions.iso.org/standard/ 46599.html (accessed on 13 October 2021). 32. de Castro, F.M.; Mateus, R.; Bragança, L. Healthcare Building Sustainability Assessment Tool-Sustainable Effective Design Criteria in the Portuguese Context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017,67, 49–60. [CrossRef] 33. RILA-Retail Industry Leaders Association How the New Agreement on Climate Change Will Impact Retail Background: The Paris Agreement. Available online: www.rila.org/sustainability (accessed on 28 May 2019). 34. Retail Forum for Sustainability Measurement and Reduction of Carbon Footprint of Stores. Available online: http://www.unep. org/sbci/pdfs/UNEPSBCICarbonMetric.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2019). 35. Retail Forum for Sustainability Sustainable Water Management. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/ retail/pdf/IssuePaperWaterFootprint.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2020). 36. Suzer, O. Analyzing the Compliance and Correlation of LEED and BREEAM by Conducting a Criteria-Based Comparative Analysis and Evaluating Dual-Certified Projects. Build. Environ. 2019,147, 158–170. [CrossRef] 37. Doan, D.T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Zhang, T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J. A Critical Comparison of Green Building Rating Systems. Build. Environ. 2017,123, 243–260. [CrossRef] 38. Cole, R.J. Emerging Trends in Building Environmental Assessment Methods. Build. Res. Inf. 1998,26, 3–16. [CrossRef] 39. Liu, T.-Y.; Chen, P.-H.; Chou, N.N.S. Comparison of Assessment Systems for Green Building and Green Civil Infrastructure. Sustainability 2019,11, 2117. [CrossRef] 40. Mattoni, B.; Guattari, C.; Evangelisti, L.; Bisegna, F.; Gori, P.; Asdrubali, F. Critical Review and Methodological Approach to Evaluate the Differences among International Green Building Rating Tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 ,82, 950–960. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 15577 25 of 26 41. Suzer, O. A Comparative Review of Environmental Concern Prioritization: LEED vs Other Major Certification Systems. J. Environ. Manage. 2015,154, 266–283. [CrossRef] 42. Cole, R.J.; Valdebenito, M.J. The Importation of Building Environmental Certification Systems: International Usages of BREEAM and LEED. Build. Res. Inf. 2013,41, 662–676. [CrossRef] 43. Bernardi, E.; Carlucci, S.; Cornaro, C.; Bohne, R.A. An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings. Sustainability 2017,9, 1226. [CrossRef] 44. Lazar, N.; Chithra, K. GREEN ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Green Building Rating Systems from the Prospect of Sustainability Dimensions through the Building Lifecycle. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 ,29, 51054–51064. [CrossRef] 45. Shan, M.; Hwang, B. Green Building Rating Systems: Global Reviews of Practices and Research Efforts. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018 , 39, 172–180. [CrossRef] 46. Liu, K.; Zhu, B.; Chen, J.; Liu, K.; Zhu, B.; Chen, J. Low-Carbon Design Path of Building Integrated Photovoltaics: A Comparative Study Based on Green Building Rating Systems. Buildings 2021,11, 469. [CrossRef] 47. Lee, W.L.; Burnett, J. Benchmarking Energy Use Assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED. Build. Environ. 2008 ,43, 1882–1891. [CrossRef] 48. Schwartz, Y.; Raslan, R. Variations in Results of Building Energy Simulation Tools, and Their Impact on BREEAM and LEED Ratings: A Case Study. Energy Build. 2013,62, 350–359. [CrossRef] 49. Wang, S.; Yan, C.; Xiao, F. Quantitative Energy Performance Assessment Methods for Existing Buildings. Energy Build. 2012 ,55, 873–888. [CrossRef] 50. Wong, P.S.P.; Lindsay, A.; Crameri, L.; Holdsworth, S. Can Energy Efficiency Rating and Carbon Accounting Foster Greener Building Design Decision? An Empirical Study. Build. Environ. 2015,87, 255–264. [CrossRef] 51. Borgstein, E.H.; Lamberts, R.; Hensen, J.L.M. Evaluating Energy Performance in Non-Domestic Buildings: A Review. Energy Build. 2016,128, 734–755. [CrossRef] 52. Allouhi, A.; El Fouih, Y.; Kousksou, T.; Jamil, A.; Zeraouli, Y.; Mourad, Y. Energy Consumption and Efficiency in Buildings: Current Status and Future Trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,109, 118–130. [CrossRef] 53. Biswas, T.; Wang, T.-H.; Krishnamurti, R. Integrating Sustainable Building Rating Systems with Building Information Models. CAADRIA Proceedings. Available online: http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2008_24_session3a_193.content. pdf (accessed on 11 September 2022). 54. Liu, Z.; Chen, K.; Peh, L.; Tan, K.W. A Feasibility Study of Building Information Modeling for Green Mark New Non-Residential Building (NRB): 2015 Analysis. In Leveraging Energy Technologies and Policy Options for Low Carbon Cities; Yan, J., Chou, S.K., Eds.; Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 80–87. 55. Srivastava, S.; Raniga, U.I.; Misra, S. A Methodological Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Construction Projects Incorporating TBL and Decoupling Principles. Sustainability 2022,14, 197. [CrossRef] 56. Assefa, S.; Lee, H.-Y.; Shiue, F.-J. Sustainability Performance of Green Building Rating Systems (GBRSs) in an Integration Model. Buildings 2022,12, 208. [CrossRef] 57. Seminara, P.; Vand, B.; Sajjadian, S.M.; Tupenaite, L. Assessing and Monitoring of Building Performance by Diverse Methods. Sustainability 2022,14, 1242. [CrossRef] 58. Meiboudi, H.; Lahijanian, A.; Shobeiri, S.M.; Jozi, S.A.; Azizinezhad, R. Development of a New Rating System for Existing Green Schools in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,188, 136–143. [CrossRef] 59. Alhilli, H.K.; Burhan, A.M. Developing a System for Assessing the Sustainability in School Building Projects. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021,23, 17483–17502. [CrossRef] 60. Mateus, R.; Bragança, L. Sustainability Assessment and Rating of Buildings: Developing the Methodology SBToolPT–H. Build. Environ. 2011,46, 1962–1971. [CrossRef] 61. Ameen, R.F.M.; Mourshed, M.; Li, H. A Critical Review of Environmental Assessment Tools for Sustainable Urban Design. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015,55, 110–125. [CrossRef] 62. Ferrari, S.; Zoghi, M.; Blazquez, T.; Dall’O, G. Towards Worldwide Application of Neighborhood Sustainability Assessments: A Systematic Review on Realized Case Studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022,158, 112171. [CrossRef] 63. Lami, I.M.; Abastante, F.; Gaballo, M. Supporting the Transition from Linear to Circular Economy Through the Sustainability Protocols. In Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2021; Gervasi, O., Murgante, B., Misra, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 626–641. 64. Richman, R.; Simpson, R. Towards Quantifying Energy Saving Strategies in Big-Box Retail Stores: A Case Study in Ontario (Canada). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016,20, 61–70. [CrossRef] 65. Wang, N.; Chang, Y.-C.; Nunn, C. Lifecycle Assessment for Sustainable Design Options of a Commercial Building in Shanghai. Build. Environ. 2010,45, 1415–1421. [CrossRef] 66. Kneifel, J. Life-Cycle Carbon and Cost Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures in New Commercial Buildings. Energy Build. 2010 , 42, 333–340. [CrossRef] 67. Saaty, T.L. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990,48, 9–26. [CrossRef] 68. Sambasivan, M.; Fei, N.Y. Evaluation of Critical Success Factors of Implementation of ISO 14001 Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): A Case Study from Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2008,16, 1424–1433. [CrossRef]