Green Building Report

GREEN
BUILDING
MARKET
REPORT
Australia
N e w Z e a l an d
2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Executive Summary
Sustainable Product Leaders
Australia
Green Building Council ofAustralia Overview
Green Building in Australia - Analysis by BCI Economics
New Zealand
.....Green Building in New Zealand - Analysis by BCI Economics
Snapshot of Green Building Report South East Asia
Methodology
Disclaimer
BCI Economics Contacts
RMIT Swanston Street - credit Lyons Architects
INTRODUCTION
With the continuing trend of rising energy prices, increasingly strict governmental regulations and
strong public attention to more environment-friendly approaches to design and construction, green
building has become a more essential matter for the Australian building and construction industry
than it has ever been before. Additionally, a recent report by American industry leader Jerry Yudelson
reveals that the scope of green building in Australia is expanding from just new construction to include
retrofitting of existing buildings, thus further corroborating the growing importance of the issue.
Since BCI has recently expanded into the New Zealand market, this years report also covers the
state of green building in that country. The fact that New Zealand has passed the threshold of 100
commercial buildings being awarded the Green Star by the New Zealand Green Building Council
(NZGBC) makes an inquiry into its domestic market especially worthwhile.
BCI Australia has been conducting surveys into the field of green building since the year 2006. Each
time, industry stakeholders were asked to share their insights and opinions on the status quo of
green building and how it affected their own businesses. Those stakeholders included owners and
developers, architects and engineers, main contractors and subcontractors. The 2014 survey is the
first to include New Zealand but marks the fourth edition of BCIs efforts to shed light on the levels of
development and commitment concerning green building measures and ventures in Australia. The
previous surveys were as follows:
GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND
The inaugural survey (April 2006) was conducted in the wake of the release of Al Gores environmental documentary-blockbuster An Inconvenient Truth which
causeda jolt of awareness of the ecological threats and the need for a concerted response. The second survey (January 2008) took place not long before the
biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression hit countries and businesses across the globe. Green building was on the verge of sustainably establishing
itself in Australia when the near-fatal financial breakdown precipitated the construction industry to focus on more short-term issues. Our most recent survey
so far (September 2010) was carried out in the aftermath of the Australian construction market avoiding a recession (due to strong governmental support).
Yet, the lack of sufficient financing continued to hamper construction projects in general and thus green building in particular. This year, 133 respondents in
Australia and 110 respondents in New Zealand participated in the survey. The results confirm that the concept of green building haso put down substantially
deep roots in both the Australian and the New Zealand construction industries. However, there do remain several barriers in both markets for green building to
grow insignificance including the perception of high upfront costs and the insufficient attention to the potential to increase the value of projects as a result of
building green.
So now, without further ado, BCI Australia and BCI New Zealand proudly present the 2014 Green Building Report. This report underscores BCIs advocacy
role for the environment and formsan important element of BCIs vast portfolio of products and services designed to providestakeholders with a greater
understanding of the Australian and New Zealand construction market.
Dr. Matthias Krups
Chairman & CEO

BCI Media Group PTY Ltd.
GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D
GREEN
PRODUCT
LEADERS
Australia
The Floor is Yours
Executive
Summary
From March to May 2014, 133 developers, architects, builders and subcontractors in Australia
and 110 in New Zealand shared their views on and experiences with green building with the BCI
Economics research team. The main findings were as follows:
Virtually 90% of respondents in Australia and just over 80% in New Zealand have been involved in
a project that entailed green building elements during the period of 2008-2014.
However, only a third of participants in Australia and a quarter in New Zealand pursued certification
by an accredited agency.
In Australia, 62% of those projects received the GBCA Green Star and in New Zealand, 47%
received the NZ GBC Green Star.
Yet, almost half of the Australian respondent professionals indicated that they were very likely
orsomewhat likely to seek an official green building certification. Their New Zealand counterparts
were not quite as motivated with roughly 37% very likely or somewhat likely to seek an official
green building certification. In both countries the Green Building Council Green Star was the
standout choice.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The three most prevalent motives in both countries for companies to pursue green building principles when designing or implementing projects were
foundtobe:
To achieve lower lifecycle costs,
To contribute to the protection of the environment and attenuate the impact of global warming and
To achieve increased building value or marketability.
Conversely, the primary reasons for which respondents from both markets said they opted not to adopt green building principles
in their projects were:
Higher cost of building materials,
Additional time and cost of documentation and
Additional time and cost to research materials.
About 54% of Australian respondents stated that they were able to report some sales growth which they could attribute to green building. This is about the
same number that was given by Australian participants in 2010 when asked about their expectations regarding the effect of green building on sales (53%).
In comparison, around 53% of industry professionals in New Zealand said they witnessed growth in sales because of their green building activity.
Although over 30% of respondents in 2010 believed upfront costs due to green building were over 20%, this figure has dramatically reduced to only 4% and
the typical rating falls in the range between +5% and +15%.
The profile of responses from New Zealand displays fairly similar clustering in the +5% to +15% range.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In spite of a high degree of uncertainty among respondents, cost savings through green building initiatives have been reported in both Australia and New Zealand,
although, on balance somewhat lower than the expectations from the previous Australian surveys.
Although a large number of respondents in Australia and New Zealand had difficulty in estimating the extent by which the value of the buildings in their projects
benefited from the green building classification, more than half of the estimates received from both countries were in excess of +5%.
Calculating the improvement in Return on Investment (ROI) for their green building projects proved the most difficult challenge for our respondents with 50% of
Australian answers and 64% of New Zealand being dont know. However, of those responses which were forthcoming from both markets, it is instructive that
the median improvement was slightly above 5%.
Concerning the technologies that Australian firms actually use in the context of green building, we ascertained that water efficient fixtures and fittings, rainwater
and stormwater management/retention systems and insulation products were the major elements incorporated by industry professionals.
Enterprises in New Zealand named insulation products, energy efficient/intelligent lighting and rainwater and stormwater management/retention systems as the
top three technologies applied.
Design software in Australia was considered most crucial for the fields of heating, lighting and alternative building materials.
In New Zealand, design software was deemed to be primarily important for natural ventilation, heating and energy modelling/baseline analysis.
AUSTRALIA
Schueco Aluminium Window System 112.IC - Uf = 0.80 W/(m2K)
Schueco Aluminium Window System 90.SI+ - Uf = 1.0 W/(m2K)
Schueco Aluminium Window System 75.SI+ - Uf = 1.3 W/(m2K)
Schueco Aluminium Window System 65 - Uf = 2.2 W/(m2K)
Schueco Aluminium Window System 70.HI - Uf = 1.6 W/(m2K)
Whatever level of performance you require,

Schueco has the solution
The sustainability performance and flexibility of Schuecos range of aluminium window, door, faade and solar-shading systems can satisfy
even the most demanding specification. Whats more, thanks to a choice of integral thermal insulation ranging from zero to Passive House
standard; thanks to unbeatable levels of sound insulation; thanks to components made from natural raw materials in our Green window;
and thanks to TipTronic automation that integrates with whole building management systems to minimise energy consumption, choosing
Schueco means choosing the ultimate sustainable solution. Schueco: the total solutions provider. www.schueco.com.au
Green Building
Council of
Australia overview
Romilly Madew
Chief Executive of Green Building

Council ofAustralia
In Australia, the green building movement only gained momentum after the Sydney Olympics in
2000 received worldwide recognition as the first Green Games. With venues and facilities that
established new benchmarks in design excellence and best practice sustainability, Australias
property and construction industry demonstrated that green buildings were achievable.
But at the time, the industry had few metrics or agreed methodologies to measure green building,
and few assessment tools or benchmarks of best practice. There was no organised approach to
knowledge-sharing or collaboration. Nor was there any way for the industry to promote or profit from
green building leadership.
In 2002, a group of green building pioneers recognised the need for an independent organisation
to develop a sustainable property industry in Australia and drive the adoption of green building
practices. The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) had arrived, following in the footsteps of
other green building councils in the UK and US.
GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA
The following year, in 2003, the GBCA launched Australias first holistic environmental rating system for buildings, Green Star.
Today, Green Star is certainly ascendant, with more than 750 building projects certified and a further 435 registered to achieve Green Star ratings. Of the almost
25 million square metres of office space across the whole of Australia, 22 per cent is Green Star-rated.
As ISPTs Chief Executive Officer, Daryl Browning, says: Those investing in or occupying properties need benchmarks they can rely on. Green Star certification
is one of the quality assurance measures everyone can rely on with confidence.
Of course, Green Star is not restricted to offices. We now have more than 120 education facilities either certified or registered to achieve Green Star certification.
Green Star is influencing the design and construction of everything from hotels to hospitals, schools to shopping centres, fire stations and train stations, libraries
and leisure centres, restaurants and retirement villages.
The Green Star Performance rating tool was released to address the sustainability of the 340 million square metres of non-residential building space that is
ripe for retrofit. According to the Property Council of Australia, the cost of running these buildings is, conservatively, $27 billion dollars each year.
Meanwhile, the Green Star Communities rating tool is addressing sustainability at the precinct scale, and we will soon see hundreds of thousands of people
living in precincts, neighbourhoods and communities with Green Star ratings.
A range of international reports have confirmed that green buildings positively impact everything from operational costs to return on investment, and from
reputational equity to productivity. The Building Better Returns report (2011) found that Green Star-rated buildings deliver a 12 per cent green premium in value
and a 5 per cent premium in rent, when compared to non-rated buildings. The Property Council/IPD Australian Green Property Index (June 2014), found that
Green Star-rated CBD office assets outperformed the broader CBD office market by 100 basis points.
Green Star buildings are recording productivity increases of up to 15 per cent, which is perhaps why Colliers Internationals Office Tenant Survey (2012) has
found that 95 per cent of tenants want to be in a green building. Green space is now one of the top four attributes tenants look for along with bike racks,
childcare facilities and a gym.
10
Each year, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index is led by Australian companies, such as Stockland, GPT Group, Investa and Lend Lease. Similarly, the Global
Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB), which now reports on 49,000 assets in 46 countries worth AUD$1. 73 trillion dollars in value, identifies Australia
as the global leader.
So, what does the future hold? Certainly, the number of Green Star-rated buildings will continue to escalate, as developers, investors and building users
all recognise that green makes good business sense, as it reduces costs, enhances transparency, accountability and risk management, and improves
productivity, health and wellbeing.
Many projects now aim for 6 Star Green Star World Leadership ratings, as project teams understand how to design for higher Green Star benchmarks on
conventional budgets. Even projects that dont attempt to achieve a Green Star rating are designed by some of the same architects and designers working on
Green Star projects, and we are seeing current Green Star principles embedded into many projects around the country.
But the Green Star story is about more than just buildings. If we were to plot the evolution of the Green Building Council of Australia over last 12years, wed
see an early emphasis on the environmental benefits of green building such as kilos of carbon, litres of water and tonnes of waste evolve to consider economic
benefits such as payback periods, cost savings, asset values and vacancy rates. As weve matured, weve expanded our thinking to recognise and reward
social return on investment such as shared value, improved productivity, health and wellbeing, and skills development.
Today, we are increasingly talking the language of social sustainability about how our buildings benefit people. Our next great challenge is to put a value on
the social capital to be gained from green building.
The World Green Building Council is currently working on two projects that exemplify this shift. A new socio-economic category for rating tools will guide the
design and delivery of buildings that empower local communities, create jobs and upskill disadvantaged groups. At the same time, a study into the health and
wellbeing benefits of green buildings will provide best practice guidance on the type of green building features that enhance productivity and performance.
As world becomes increasingly interconnected, we have a shared fate and a shared responsibility to our communities, to our society and to our environment.
Asthe world adapts, and the market adapts, Green Star will continue to adapt. Why? Because everyone should have the opportunity to learn in asustainable
school, work in an efficient office, or live in a healthy home and because Green Star is the mechanism to help us create sustainable places for everyone.
11
Green
Building
Council
of Australia
fast facts
750
More than
750
Green Star
certified
projects
member
organisations
More than
60,000
people
trained in
Green Star
45
Staff
435
Green Star
registered
projects
12
Innovative
Green
Facades
Green facades may look simple in appearance.
However, multiple factors go into planning and
detailing a successful green facade. Like our
clients, each facade that Tensile creates is
unique, and innovative solutions are Tensiles
forte. We at Tensile pride ourselves on our
ability to create unique designs and are
genuinely excited by opportunities to develop
new ways of doing things. A one-size-fits-all
mentality is certainly not what Tensile is about.
We take the time to understand our clients
needs and create a bespoke solution to meet
their requirements.
Contact us to discuss your next project

Phone 02 9999 3668
Email info@tensile.com.au
www.tensile.com.au
One Central Park - Green Facades completed by Tensile
Breakout
box
tHE Value of
Green Star
Green Star-rated buildings emit around a third of the

greenhouse gas emissions and use a third of the electricity
when compared with the average Australian building.
The Value of Green Star: A decade of environmental
benefits (2013), analysed the data from 428 Green
Star-certified projects occupying 5,746,000 million square
metres across Australia and compares it to the average
Australian building and minimum practice benchmarks.
Findings include:
14
nergy: Green Star-rated buildings have reduced electricity consumption by a total o580,000
E
megawatts per year equivalent to 76,000 average households annual electricity use.
missions: On average, Green Star-certified buildings produce 62 per cent fewer greenhouse
E
gas emissions. The cumulative greenhouse gas savings from the Green Star-rated buildings
surveyed, when compared to the average, totals 625,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year - the
equivalent of removing 172,000 cars from our roads.
ater: Green Star buildings use 51 per cent less potable water than average buildings. That saving 3,300,000 kilolitres of potable water ayear
W
is enough to service 18,000 households or fill 1,320 Olympic swimming pools.
Waste: Green Star - As Built certified buildings are recycling 96 per cent of their construction demolition waste. In total, 37,600 truckloads
ofconstruction and demolition waste have been diverted from landfill due to good waste management practices.
For many building owners and managers operating in an increasingly competitive market, the environmental, financial and social benefits of Green Star
buildings are now too good to ignore.
Download The Value of Green Star: A decade of environmental benefits from the GBCA website:
http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/194/34754/The_Value_of_Green_Star_Key_Findings_web.pdf
15
Green building
more than energy efficiency
While Green Star buildings are better for the environment and cheaper to operate, energy efficiency
is just part of the story.
A smart business decision
Abode Woden, an adaptive reuse project developed by GEOCON, is on track to become the
first Green Star-rated hotel in Australia. We understand that truly sustainable practices can deliver
dividends from reduced operating costs and higher profit margins, to improved staff productivity
and brand equity. Achieving a Green Star rating just makes good business sense, says GEOCONs
Managing Director, Nick Georgalis.
Healthier places to heal
Australias first Green Star-rated healthcare facility, the Flinders Medical Centre New South Wing
in Adelaide, houses womens health services and has been designed to deliver high-quality
patient care with a minimal environmental footprint. The new unit increased deliveries of babies by
10percent in its first year of operation - positive proof of the communitys support for hospitals that
provide high-quality care for patients and the environment, with improved healing and recovery rates
increasing bed turnover.
16
Improved productivity and learning
Staff and students love RMITs Swanston Academic Building (SAB). The sustainability features, which earned a 5 Star Green Star rating, have delivered higher
quality learning outcomes, as well as greater student engagement and space use. A survey of staff and student surveys found an 85percent satisfaction rating
with the building. Whats more, 77 per cent of staff felt the design, technology and environment within SAB had improved their delivery of learning material and
engagement with students.
Delivering higher returns
Grocons investment in the 6 Star Green Star-certified PIXEL building in Melbourne was vindicated after the developer achieved a positive commercial return.
The $6 million transaction, though modest, netted $1 million more than would a similar-sized, similar quality office without a Green Star rating. This transaction
proves that purchasers are increasingly attracted to unique, innovative and sustainable buildings, said Grocons Chairman Daniel Grollo.
A future proofed investment
Australand achieved Green Star certification for its Key Spec 1 industrial development because Green Star certification gives us assurance that were futureproofing our investment, says Australands Sustainability Manager, Paolo Bevilacqua. When combined with the fact that it will reduce occupancy costs for
our customers, we believe the Green Star rating gives both Australand and our customers a competitive edge in the market as utility costs continue to rise.
A competitive edge in a crowded market
The University of Technology Sydney has three Green Star-rated buildings in the pipeline, including the Frank Gehry-designed Dr Chau Chak Wing Building.
Having Green Star-rated buildings gives UTS an edge in competing for students, says UTS sustainability manager Danielle McCartney`. There is benchmarking
around sustainability and Green Star which could make a difference.
17
An employee retention tool
GPT Groups new headquarters house some of the happiest workers in Sydney. Prior to moving, just 54 per cent of GPT workers were satisfied with their level of
comfort in their working environment; the new space has achieved a 97 per cent satisfaction rating. Im proud to say I work in a green environment, says one GPT
employee.
Sustainability in action
The Sir Samuel Griffith Centre is a $40 million world-class building and Australias first off-grid, self-powering teaching and research facility. The building gives an
absolute physical expression to this universitys ongoing commitment to sustainability. It is a showcase of genuine sustainable energy alternatives for Australia and the
international community, says Griffith Universitys Vice Chancellor, Professor Ian OConnor.
18
Respondents
profile Australia
The 2014 Green Building Report encompassed 133 respondents in total across Australia. More than three
quarters of those were providers of professional services such as architects, engineers and consultants.
Participants came from companies of all sizes, ranging from such with 1-10 employees to those employing
more than 100 people, with the small companies forming the largest group.
Subcontractor
1%
101
and more
23%
Owner/
Developer
10%
Main
contractor,
builder
12%
Professional
services:
architect,
engineer,
consultant
77%
11-100
30%
1-10
47%
19
Kingspan insulation. You wont just feel

the difference, youll see it.
There is a science to achieving high performance

buildings and it starts with construction materials
and design of the building envelope. Thats why
Kingspan Insulation always perform a detailed
thermal analysis to help us custom design the
most effective insulation solution.
The science extends to our insulation ranges.

They deliver amazing thermal performance in the
thinnest of wall footprints Kingspan Kooltherm
achieves R2.5 in just a 50mm thickness, and we
can also design thin wall systems that achieve
R4 and beyond. Where condensation is a
concern, we have unique solutions in our
vapour-permeable Kingspan AIR-CELL range.
To ensure you maximise their superior thermal

performance, we even provide on-site installation
training and assistance.
To see the difference our high performance
insulation can make, call 1300 247 235 or visit
www.kingspaninsulation.com.au/newlight
Tel: 1300 247 235

Email: info@kingspaninsulation.com.au
www.kingspaninsulation.com.au/newlight
Green Building
in Australia
GREEN BUILDING ACTIVITY
Nearly nine out of ten industry players in Australia stated that they had been involved in green building in
one way or another in the six years since 2008. This surpasses the results of our previous studies and
marks a significant increase from the 2010 survey (90 % from 83 %). We can therefore conclude that
at least as far as the sheer affiliation with green building isconcerned the Australian construction
market has reached a decisive penetration rate. Green building appears to have gone mainstream
in the Australian building industry.
AUSTRALIA
100%
95%
90%
90%
84%
85%
83%
85%
80%
75%
70%
2006
21
2008
2010
2014
G reen B uilding in A u s t ralia
When we analysed the degree of involvement in green

building state by state, the trends for most states or
territories are quite similar to the overall Australian
outcome. The exception was the result for SA declining
to 75%, however, this may be asampling anomaly.
NSW
100%
94%
89%
90%
84%
84%
2006
2008
80%
70%
2010
QLD
2014
100%
100%
90%
81%
80%
70%
74%
2006
2008
76%
2010
2014
22
ACT
100%
VIC
100%
100%
90%
94%
88%
90%
85%
91%
85%
82%
80%
70%
NT
80%
75%
2006
2008
100%
100%
2010
100%
100%
2008
2010
2014
SA
89%
86%
90%
80%
23
2006
100%
90%
70%
70%
2014
86%
85%
80%
2006
2008
2010
2014
70%
75%
2006
2008
2010
2014
TAS
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
WA
89%
90%
86%
83%
81%
81%
80%
80%
70%
80%
2006
2008
2010
2014
70%
2006
2008
2010
2014
24
OWNER*
developer*
100%
100%
100%
100%
86%
80%
80%
80%
64%
64%
60%
60%
40%
40%
2006
2008
2014
2006
2008
2014
Furthermore, we also looked at the degree of green building affiliation according to the respondents roles in the industry. Owners and developers
were found to be the primary champions of green building in Australia, achieving 100% involvement. This may reflect an appreciation of the
value of a Green Star rating in attracting and retaining tenants.
* In 2006, the results for owners and developers were combined.
25
Contractor/Subcontractor
100%
Professional Services
100%
80%
80%
75%
60%
90%
54%
64%
69%
60%
45%
40%
40%
2006
2008
2014
2006
2008
2014
26
MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE
NO COMPROMISE
The perfect solution for Green Buildings
Wattyl I.D is an environmentally preferable paint for interiors with

no compromise on colour, quality or performance.
Tinted with Wattyl Ecotint, our low environmental impact tinting
system, Wattly I.D offers a complete system and a wide range of
product sizes. For more information visit wattyl.com.au
GREEN BUILDING
CERTIFICATION
Of those respondents that did pursue and achieve certification, 60%
stated that they sought a Green Star rating as accredited by the Green
Building Council of Australia. The remaining responses were spread
across a wide range of local and overseas accreditation and rating
systems.
Although the share of Australian firms involved in green building is the

highest we have recorded to date, merely a third of survey participants
indicated that their projects had been accredited by an official agency.
YES
34%
NO
66%
Others: LEED,
BREEAM,
GREEN
MARK etc.
30%
LEED (US)
10%
28
GBCA
Green Star
60%
GROWTH
EXPECTATIONS
FOR GREEN BUILDING
- BY BUILDING CATEGORY -
no growth
strong growth
4
2.8
Commercial/Office
Although publicly funded projects such as community buildings

do not rate highly, the influence of the government sector is
acknowledged as significant because of the minimum standards,
for example, designated for their office accommodation. These are
setting benchmarks for development in the private sector.
In the 2014 survey, our questionnaire sought the respondents opinion
of the growth prospects from their companys perspective. During the
survey period we did note that business confidence was generally
positive although business conditions remained subdued.
Bearing this in mind, although the actual rating values have been
pulled back, the profile of responses is still similar to previous surveys
with the commercial/office and education categories seen to afford
the most potential. However, and this may be indicative of the current
high levels of activity, residential, especially multi dwelling residential
has edged in front of healthcare.
* In the 2010 survey Government funded projects formed a separate category.
In 2014 this was replaced by the category Publicly funded, community & legal.
**In 2010 the categories of multi residential & single residential were combined
Education
2.8
Multi Residential**
2.8
Single Residential
2.7
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.4
Healthcare
2.2
Hospitality
Industrial
2.1
Retail
2.1
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.6
2014 growth expectations for firm
2010 growth expectations per category
29
Australia
ON-SITE POWER GENERATION CHP BIOGAS BIOMASS SOLAR SUPPLY & INSTALL ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTIONS
Have you considered on-site power generation

for your next project?
Mass Energy are bringing the most advanced cogeneration technology
available to Australia.
As an authorised 2G partner we specialise in supplying and installing the most
efficient, all-in-one combined heat and power systems available. These
state of the art German engineered, modular units range from 20kW to 2000kW
and feature a plug and play system that shortens install time. Running on natural gas
or biogas, they provide a great solution when carbon footprint reduction is a priority.
Since 2011 we have installed energy efficient solutions such as LED lighting,
voltage optimisation and energy monitoring for a range of clients including
City of Port Phillip, Montague Cold Storage, Surdex Steel and Cardinia Shire Council.
To discuss your project call 1300 00 6277 or email info@massenergy.com.au.
www.massenergy.com.au | info@massenergy.com.au | 1300 00 6277

Est. 2011
REASONS FOR
INVOLVEMENT
IN GREEN BUILDING
As in previous surveys, the two leading reasons for being involved are
to achieve lower operating costs and concerns for the buildings impact
on the environment although this year they have switched places
in the ranking. That the financial incentive appears to be emerging
ahead of the idealistic motive is supported by the higher rating for the
expected improvement in Return onInvestment.
This year, the third place slot went to another financial incentive option
which had not been considered in previous surveys the enhanced
value and improved marketability of buildings with Green credentials.
As was mentioned in the introduction, Australia is now seeing green
building principles applied to building refurbishments and upgrades.
Having a good Green Star rating is being seen as important for retaining
tenants as well as attracting them.
The relatively minor relevance of Green Building in government tendering
probably is a measure of how well the principles are now being taken
for granted. However, this still remains an issue for contractors who
need to know how to deliver a green product at a competitive price!
60%
80%
100%
86%
62%
Contribute to the protection of our

environment/reduce global warming
82%
73%
Achieve increased building

value/marketability
72%
Benefit from positive publicity/be

seen as a good corporate citizen
65%
40%
Achieve higher sales by attracting and

retaining green building cllients
64%
60%
Requirement of developer/owner
63%
62%
61%
Achieve higher return on investment
22%
Win government tenders
46%
38%
Attract and retain talent for my firm
28%
2010
2014
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
60%

56%

value/marketability
69%
61%
91%
85%
62%
62%

76%
77%
81%
62%
67%
63%

62%
59%
62%
64%
100%
85%
Achieve lower lifecycle costs
Owner/Developer
40%
31
20%
0%
47%
31%
43%
38%
35%
80%
79%
53%

0%
REASONS AGAINST
INVOLVEMENT IN
GREEN BUILDING
We also survey the negative attitudes in the building and
construction industry dissuading participants from getting
involved in green building. As in our previous surveys
(cited by over 90% of respondents) the perceived higher
cost of building materials was confirmed as the most potent
objection.
However, given the positive growth trend of green building,

and the observation that only 66% made mention of
the upfront costs (compared with over 90% previously),
we surmise that higher volumes may be helping to bring
down the manufacturing costs of products meeting green
building standards.
40%
60%
Higher costs of
building
materials
80%
100%
80%
100%
66%
Additional time and

cost of
documentation
48%
Additional time and

cost to research
materials
48%
Additional time and

cost for additional
training
41%
Additional time needed

atdesign stage
45%
0%
This year, spots 2 and 3 were occupied by the reasons

additional time and cost of documentation and additional
time and cost to research materials, respectively. This
reinforces the view that it is the cost aspect that poses the
major impediment to the adoption of green building elements
by professionals although there is asub-text that the extra
effort to pursue complying design principles is abit too hard.
20%
20%
40%
60%
62%
66%
Higher costs of
building materials
81%
62%
Additional time and

cost of documentation
45%
50%
38
Additional time and

cost to research materials
45%
75%
50%
Additional time and

cost for additional training
38%
63%
38%
44%

atdesign stage
50%
Owner/Developer
32
Let there be light

The floor is usually one of the largest surfaces in a room,
however, when it comes to enhancing natural light in
a building, it is generally one of the most overlooked
elements of fit-out.
One Canberra, an iconic commercial project by Willemsen
Design, shifted this approach and put a focus on the flooring
and its interaction with the glass faade in order to maximise
lighting efficiency and improve the indoor environment.
Maximising natural light throughout the floor plate was a
key design criteria for One Canberra. The team knew that
abundance of natural light would serve to improve occupant
health (both physically and psychologically), and also
reduce the need for artificial lighting, thus increasing energy
efficiency.
To do this, the team installed new low E triple silver coated
insulating floor-to-ceiling glass with a class leading 63% of
visible light transmission and insulating ISO G value of 0.26.
In order to make the most of this light, the Willemsen team
LEARN MORE about Circular Economy + Cradle to Cradle Manufacturing

sydneybetterbuildings.com.au/2014/towards-circular-economy/
CASE STUDY: ONE CANBERRA
then looked to the flooring and sought a carpet with a high

light reflective value (LRV) that would maximise this light
throughout the floor plate, without compromising on the
texture and colour.
According to Anthony Willemsen, CEO of Willemsen Group,
The Desso product was unique providing us an office area
carpet which exceeded our requirements for light reflective
value (LRV) whilst having a serviceable and aesthetically
pleasing colour and texture.
We used the latest passive and active energy

efficiency systems to achieve the lowest energy
consumption possible whilst still providing
optimum occupant comfort.
To make the most of the visible light transmission through
the glass faade we established a high benchmark LRV
of 15% for the flooring, this was exceeded by the Desso
Fields product which had a 16.11% LRV.
On sunny days the building is able to capture and transmit

sufficient natural light across the floor plate to eliminate the need
for artificial ceiling lighting, with only detailed work requiring task
lighting support.
Added to this, Desso carpets are designed and manufactured using
circular economy and Cradle to Cradle principles.
Inspired by the company vision to create environmentally
responsible products that contribute to health and wellbeing, Desso
has developed a unique range of carpets including Light Reflection
Master, SoundMaster and its top selling AirMaster.
Desso AirMaster with Ecobase backing was recognised recently at
the Australian BPN Awards receiving the judges commendation in
the Innovation of the Year category.
For more information, please contact Colin Bray, Desso
cbray@desso.com or visit desso-businesscarpets.com
The Floor is Yours
FAMILIARITY WITH
CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS
The level of familiarity with the Green Star system as administered by
the Green Building Council of Australia is encouraging. Although we
are unable to make a direct comparison with our previous survey, there
is reason to believe that it continues to improve, as in 2008, 37% of
respondents claimed to have good knowledge whereas, in 2014,
45% had either detailed or expert knowledge.
However, there was only limited awareness of other certification
systems. Only 7% of respondents claimed detailed knowledge about
the US LEED system and 5% about the British BREEAM scheme.
Moreover, there was little evidence of working knowledge of the local
regional systems such as Green Mark (Singapore), BEAM Plus (Hong
Kong), GBI (Malaysia), TREES (Thailand) and Greenship (Indonesia).
Although not intended for inclusion in the study, it was clear from the
responses that there is generally a good working knowledge of the
rating tool NABERS (and NatHERS for residential use) for buildings
actual performance which is to be expected following the introduction
of the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act of 2010.
34
dont know (1)
expert knowledge (5)

3.4
Green Star (Australia)
LEED (US)
2.0
BREAAM (UK)
1.7
Green Mark
1.4
CGBC (Canada)
1.4
BEAM Plus (Hongkong)
1.3
GBI (Malaysisa)
1.2
TREES (Thailand)
1.2
Greenship (Indonesia)
1.2
BERDE (Philippines)
1.1
Lotus (Vietnam)
1.1
THE INTENTION OF SEEKING

GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION
PREFERRED GREEN BUILDING

CERTIFICATION
We noted earlier that only a third of respondents had pursued certification

for their projects previously. However, looking ahead, 47% of our participants
stated that they were very likely or somewhat likely to seek an official green
building certification. This hopefully is a sign that the badge is growing in
status and as a result, in demand.
As was to be expected given the familiarity with the various schemes

demonstrated earlier, the Green Star system is the dominant option with
the UK BREEAM and US LEED systems having minority shares.
We will later explore the sentiments for and against pursuing certification but
it is worth pausing to consider that more than half of the eligible projects are
still unlikely to proceed with Green Star accreditation including 16% of the
participants who stated they will not seek certification but will still stick to green
building standards.
Not seeking for
certification, but
sticking
to Green Building
standards 16%
Very likely
12%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Green Star
(Australia)
LEED (US)
BREEAM (UK)
Very
unlikely
13%
Somewhat
unlikely
24%
However, among the other responses we recorded, there was a strong

hint that some respondents would opt to pursue the NABERS rating tool
on building completion and forego certification from design stage.
OTHERS
100%
92%
5%
3%
5%
Somewhat
likely
35%
35
PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF
CERTIFICATION BY BUILDING CATEGORY
THE MAIN REASONS

FOR NOT SEEKING CERTIFICATION
We wished to determine whether the industry professionals regarded

certification as being more useful for certain building categories than others.
In light of their importance as an asset class, it was not surprising that
commercial office buildings headed the list.
The sheer upfront cost is clearly the favourite reason for not seeking certification.
This should be taken into consideration with the result for the option lacking
credit being given to certification by our clients our interpretation is that the
cost is likely to remain a potential barrier even if the client is educated regarding
the benefits of certification. Moreover there is some scepticism regarding the
eventual outcome with 39% believing that the performance reality may not
measure up to what is promised at design stage.
In general terms there appear to be two classes of building type. With offices,
education, public buildings, healthcare and multi-residential would appear to
be the building types which would most benefit from certification.
In contrast, certification is considered less beneficial for hospitality, industrial,
single residential and retail buildings.
Nevertheless, relatively few participants are critical of the level of requirements

the bar has not been set too high.
completely useful
completely useless
1
Certification is also regarded as a difficult process (and requiring significant staff

time) and that information on requirements is not readily available.
0%
3.3
Commercial/Office
Education
3.2
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.2
Healthcare
3.1
Multi Residential
3.1
20%
40%
Cost of certification process
62%
Difficulty of certification process
41%
Gap between design promises and

the performance reality
39%
Lacking credit being given to

certification by our clients
39%
36%
Hospitality
2.8
Staff time required
Industrial
2.8
Lacking information on
certification requirements
34%
Single Residential
2.8
Time of certification process
33%
Retail
2.8
Requirements too high

23%
37
60%
80%
SALES GROWTH
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
In previous surveys, BCI elicited the expectations for commercial
benefits of getting involved in green building. In 2014 we took the
opportunity for a reality check and we asked about the outcomes of
those initiatives.
In 2008, respondents were particularly optimistic about the sales
opportunities afforded by green building and 16% anticipated
significant growth with a further 44% who expected some growth.
0%
20%
60%
80%
100%
6%
11%
16%
Significant
14%
42%
Some
44%
69%
Little/None
31%
37%
11%
10%
9%
Dont Know
2014 reality
2010 expectations
0%
These views were tempered in 2010 and 11% believed the sales
growth would be significant and 42% thought there would be some
growth.
40%
20%
40%
2008 expectations
60%
80%
100%
15%
Significant
6%
13%
14%
In 2014, our survey revealed that significant growth had been

experienced by 6% of the respondents and only 14% confirmed that
they had noticed some growth. In our working figures, there were
another 34% who reported growth as little but that should perhaps
be ignored.
We would make one observation. As green building has become
more accepted and expected, one might argue that firms would
have run the risk of losing business if they did not have the skills and
experience to deliver a green product.
18%
Some
0%
62%
70%
Little/None
63%
Dont Know
8%
7%
Owner/Developer
25%
38
ADDITIONAL UPFRONT
BUILDING COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO GREEN BUILDING
10%
0%
20%
4%
20% or more
12%
15% to less than 20%
The good news in 2014 is that the 2010 experience has not
carried over with only 4% of our respondents assessing the
additional cost factor as in excess of 20% and the major share
falling into the +5% to +15% range.
Less than 5%
3%
12%
5%
No impact
16%
2014 actuality
0%
25%
2010 actuality
0%
4%
40%
60%
6%
6%
15%
13%
5% to less than 10%
19%
8%
Less than 5%
5%
46%
20%
6%
0%
2008 belief
20%
No impact
28%
16%
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
19%
13%
Dont Know
40
19%
10%
The estimates vary by respondent type with owners/developers

looking to be the most pessimistic and contractors being more
frugal with the design and engineering professionals close to
the middle. However, we must express our concern that 28% of
respondents were unable to provide estimates of the additional
costs for their projects.
60%
20%
17%
19%
5% to less than 10%
20% or more
50%
22%
16%
0%
In 2010 we took the opportunity to check whether the actual

experience had been as scary as we thought it might be. The
alarming result in that year was that 30% of our sample believed
green building incurred an additional cost of over 20%, well above
the 9% of respondents in the survey of 2008.
40%
30%
9%
It has always been taken for granted that green building would
involve additional building costs. It has also been frequently cited
that the extra expense was a major factor inhibiting the uptake of
green building design principles.
30%
23%
31%
14%
13%
13%
8%
27%
25%
SAVINGS IN OPERATING
COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO GREEN BUILDING
10%
0%
7%
20% or more
10%
11%
Comparing the distribution of responses over the past three surveys

shows the initial optimism to have been somewhat overstated.
Nevertheless, in2014 48% of those respondents who were prepared
to estimate the cost savings claimed those savings to be at least
10%. Also, when comparing the weighted averages of the estimated
savings in operating costs over time the current experience of 6%
is not that far off the expectation in 2008 of 7%. However, it is
disappointing compared with the overall 2010 result of 9%.
A slightly different picture emerges from the analysis of the estimates
of cost savings according to respondent type. Here we see that
owners and developers rate the level of operating cost savings
somewhat higher than the other respondents. As this sector has the
most to benefit from these cost savings we can therefore have some
confidence that green building is delivering on its earlier promise.
50%
60%
15%
15%
13%
14%
9%
13%
8%
9%
Less than 5%
40%
15%
8%
5% to less than 10%
30%
16%
14%
As mentioned above, a major commercial motive for embracing

green building principles has been the belief that these would lead
to significant savings in operating costs, in particular, the lower
consumption of energy and water. The most significant observation
from this years survey has been the lack of attention to this key
issue with 44% of our respondents unable to provide estimates.
Earlier surveys have also been subject to ahigh degree of uncertainty
although the Dont Know responses in 2010 only amounted to
29%.
20%
4%
3%
5%
No impact
Dont Know
44%
29%
2014 actuality
2010 actuality
0%
20%
20% or more
6%
6%
2008 belief
40%
60%
15%
8%
6%
40%
11%
12%
15%
15%
15%
12%
13%
5% to less than 10%
23%
11%
13%
Less than 5%
0%
No impact
2%
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
19%
8%
38%
45%
41
DESIGN IS
SUSTAINABLE
Discover commercial
flooring solutions from
the worlds largest carpet
manufacturer and recycler
At Shaw Contract Group we are
dedicated to creating the most
beautiful and sustainable flooring
in the world.
As the worlds first flooring
manufacturer with Cradle to Cradle
CertifiedCM products, we use
processes and materials that enable
us to offer over 300 Cradle to Cradle
CertifiedCM carpet tile and broadloom
products that can be remanufactured
again and again.
Melton Library and Learning Hub, Victoria
Our entire EcoWorx backed product

range is 100% PVC and bitumen free
and is certified with the highest level
of GECA certification and a Green Star
Level A Green Building Council of
Australia product rating.
Each year we take back more than 45
thousand tonnes of post-consumer
carpet globally and among our
reclamation efforts is an environmental
guarantee on every EcoWorx backed
product for reclamation and recycling.
Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria
Australia
1800 556 302
shawcontractgroup.com.au
New Zealand
09 574 0640
jacobsens.co.nz
Olivia Newton John Cancer & Wellness Centre, Victoria
20%
INCREASE IN BUILDING
VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
This is another subject impacted by a high degree of uncertainty.
Although the percentage of Dont Know responses was high at
44%, this was substantially lower than the level of 58% recorded
in 2008.
It was disappointing to see that 13% of the responses were
that green building had No Impact on the value of the building.
Nevertheless, the distribution of the other responses were
comparable with those for previous surveys.
Looking at the results according to respondent type,
we again see that owners and developers had a higher
estimation of the benefit to building value of green
building than the other respondents as well as the
lowest dont know percentage.
0%
20% or more
4%
3%
13%
0%
10%

5% to less than 10%
No impact
7%
12%
13%
2%
0%
2014 actuality

0%
58%
2010 actuality
0%
20% or more
44%
29%
2008 belief
20%
40%
60%
4%
6%
3%
15%
6%
15%
6%
11%
5% to less than 10%
23%
14%
6%
No impact
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
10%
Dont Know
Less than 5%
43
20%
18%
16%
17%
5%
Less than 5%
60%
11%
9%
40%
8%
10%
12%
31%
15%
19%
23%
31%
45%

0%
INCREASE IN RETURN
ON INVESTMENT (ROI)
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
With respondents struggling to estimate operating cost savings and
improvement in building value it is not surprising that 50% of the
responses to this question were Dont Know just marginally better
than the result for2008.
We can however conclude that the improvement in ROI is reasonably
comparable with what was expected previously with the distribution
of responses fairly similar across the 3surveys
Consistent with the two previous questions, the owners and
developers are clearly more confident of the degree of improvement
than the professional services and contracting sectors.
10%
20%
30%
5%
8%
7%
6%
10%
14%
16%
17%
15%
5% to less than 10%

Less than 5%
10%
10%
5%
No impact
3%
12%
5%
Dont Know
29%
2014 actuality
2008 belief
20%
5%
6%
0%
40%
60%
8%
1%
0%
44%
40%
2010 actuality
0%
15%
8%
7%
15%
12%
13%
5% to less than 10%

Less than 5%
No impact
60%
4%
3%
50%
2%
20% or more
20% or more
40%
16%
19%
0%
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
31%
11%
13%
31%
49%
50%
44
Australias lea
der
in eco-friendly
Western Red
Cedar building
products
Cedar Sales Western Red Cedar:

Australias first GreenTag Platinum Rating
CertTM
First in sustainability
First in performance
Australias first GreenTagCertTM Platinum Rated

Certification (selected products)
GreenTagCertTM GreenRate Level A Certification
Chain of Custody FSC Certification
PEFC Certification
Acoustic absorption
Thermal protection
Energy efficient
Add warmth and style
Find out more freecall 1800 156 455

visit cedarsales.com.au
THE IMPORTANCE OF DESIGN

SOFTWARE TO OPTMISE
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
The preferred application of design software appears to be in the prediction
and evaluation of solar heating and lighting.
However there is an interesting spread of responses with a substantial number
of participants registering a degree of scepticism concerning the usefulness of
design software available.
not important (1)

Predict and evaluate
natural (solar) heating
2.5

natural (solar) lighting
2.5
Evaluate and explore

alternative building
2.4
Energy modelling
/baseline
2.3

natural ventilation
2.3
Specify material
quantities
2.3

HVAC operating costs
46
very important (4)
2.2
0%
TECHNOLOGIES EMPLOYED
IN GREEN BUILDING
PROJECTS
In Australia, the three clear leaders were water efficient fixtures and
fittings, rainwater and stormwater management/retention and insulation
products for roofs, ceilings, walls and pipes. These were fairly closely
followed by energy efficient/intelligent lighting, renewable energy
systems and energy efficient appliances.
It will be interesting to see how this develops over the following years.
Some technologies, such as co-generation and tri-generation energy
systems will probably continue to suit only a limited range of projects,
however, it would be rewarding if the use of recycled and renewable
materials, waste water treatment and building control systems were to
climb into the 60% and 70% ranges.
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Water efficient
fixtures and fittings
87%
Rainwater and stormwater

management/retention
87%
Insulation products for roofs,

ceilings, walls and pipes
86%
Energy efficient/
intelligent lighting
81%
79%
Renewable Energy Systems
75%
Energy efficient appliances

Use of recycled or
renewable materials
69%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
61%
Sustainable wastewater
management
Responsible sourcing of
bio-based and renewable
(raw)materials
60%
46%
Energy management Systems

(EMS)
42%
High efficiency packaged

HVCA systems
35%
Whole building
energy simulation
32%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
Co-generation and
tri-generation
Water sub-metering and
leak detection systems
27%
22%
17%
47
Jinko Solar modules installed
in Australias Largest Solar Farm
Atlantis; Humes; Rocla; Action Tanks;

Pioneer tanks; Maxiplas; Graf;
Ri-Industries; Taylex; Clark tanks;
Bianco Rainsaver; Stormtech;
Geotextile; Macaferri; Rainbank; Rain
Harvesting; Stowe; Allied pumps;
Caroma; Enware; Dorf; GWA
Stormwater 360; NovaPlas; Ada
Aline; Davey; Biofilta; Tankworks;
Group brand; Grohe; Billi; Raymor;
Kohler; Galvin Engineering; Irwell; Nubian; Vinidex; Compass
Tanks; Purator; Australian
Rheem; Rinnai; Gentech; Water
Tanks; Elmich
Green
Building
Products and Technologies -
Conservation Services; Britex;

RMC Water and
Hansa; Geberit; Crane;
Environment; Enware;
Hansen; Hansgrohe;
SA Water; All Controls;
EMS; Australian Leak Detection; Fowler
Watersave; Urban Management
Services (UMS); Sydney Water
Water efficient
fixtures and
fittings
Brand Recognition
We asked our respondents to

nominate 2 to 3 brands for each
ofthetechnologies that we had
previously identified. We then collated
the responses and have listed the
brands accordingto the frequency
ofmention.
Rainwater
and
stormwater
management/
retention
Water submetering and

leak detection
systems
No brands reported
Brightgreen; Organic Response;

GEC; JSB lighting; Zumtobel;
Empyrean; Coolon
Insulation
products for
roofs, ceilings,
walls and
Energy efficient/
pipes
intelligent
lighting
OptEnergy; Schneider; Grosvenor;

Alerton; Johnson Controls (JCI);
Siemens; Honeywell; Daikin; Mitsubishi
L EA DE RS
WA NT E D!
Intelligent HVAC
monitoring systems
Whole building energy

simulation
High efficiency
packaged HVAC
systems
Daikin; Fujitsu; Mitsubishi; Carrier;

Haden Engineering; Zhender;
Lennox; Hitachi; Yanmar; Trane;
Toshiba; Hunt Heating
Energy
management Responsible
Systems (EMS) sourcing of
bio-based
and renewable
(raw) materials
Honeywell; Siemens;
CBus; Siemens;
Schneider; DEOA;
Greensense; Ecovision; IMS
Carter Holt Harvey

(CHH); TecEco;
Timber FSC; Replas;
Eco-Ash; Island
Block & Paving; The
Tilling Group; Woodform
Architectural; Livos Energy;
KLH; Admonter; Eco-Wood
Richmond Victoria (Ecowood
Plus); Modwood
Solahart;
SMA; Apricus;
Zen; Canadian Solar;
Sunpower; Dux; Tindo Solar;
Rheem; Energy Bank; AAA solar;
Venergy; Blue Moon Solar; BP Solar;
Solar Gain; Harelec; Edwards Solar; Bosch;
Optimal; Brothers Armstrong; Madison; Avic;
Energysmart; Renewable Energy Solutions (Voltlogic);
Going Solar; Solar Tube; Rinnai/Beasley SHW; Jemena;
Martini; Polymax; Acoustica; Ingenero;
Newcastle Solar; Edson; LG;
Q-Cells; ReneSola
Renewable
Energy Systems
Co-generation
and tri-generation
AccuRate; ArchiCAD; Basix; BERS;

Breer; DesignBuilder; Ecotect;
Energyplus; Goanna Energy; Engineering
Solutions Tasmania; IES; NatHERS; Revit;
SDP Consulting; SUNREL; VAE
Engineering; VE
49
CSR Bradford; Kingspan

(incl. Air-Cell); Hebel; Fletcher
Insulation; Boral; Knauf; Tontine; Ritek;
AAA solar;
Autex; Martini; Pyrotek; Earthwool;
Energy Bank;
Celotex; James Hardie; Brothers
Schneider; Thorn; Pierlite;
Armstrong; Choice Solutions;
ThermoWrap; Rmax; Carter Holt
Famco; Philips; Lumex Lighting
Harvey (CHH); PolyAir; Durra
(Novablade); LED Energy Systems;
Panel; Polyma; Acoustica;
Greenlux;
Siemens; Opal Energy;
Higgins; Bondor; Insulation
MaxLite; Clipsal; Osram; Ecofire;
Solutions; Isoboard
Energy efficient
appliances
Use of recycled or
renewable materials In tiles, carpets,
doors, paints
Sustainable
roofing solutions
Reflective
roofing
Miele; Bosch; Fisher & Paykel; Electrolux ; Rheem;

Westinghouse; LG; Daikin; Daikin; AAA solar;
Energy Bank; Sanden; Apricus; Rinnai; Hobart;
Smeg; Kelvinator; Flygt; Zip; Siemens; Solahart;
Braemar; Laundry Solutions Australia
Interface; Forbo; Kennedys; Replas; Boral;

Modwood; Nullabor Timber; Ecobrick;
Eco-Ash; Island Block & Paving;Opus;
Bone Timber; Austim; Fletcher insulation;
Tridek; NotWood; Havwoods; Australian
Recycled Timber; EcoTimber; Feltex;
Cooset Industries; Urban Salvage;
Delta Group; Durra Panel; Osmo; Livos
Energy; Armstrong; Tontine; Signature
Floorcoverings
Kingspan;
Ritek; Lysaght;
NZ Metal Roofing
Manufacturers Association Inc.;
Fielders; Stramit; Revolution Roofing;
Kalzip; Autex; Austral Panel; Tridek;
Colorbond; Impact; Solaris; Boral;
Durra Panel (Ortech); Atlantis Cell;
Ruuki; Hufcor; Cool Roof
systems and paints;
Bluescope/Lysaght; Stramit;
Zinco; Elmich
Colorbond; Kingspan (incl. AirCell); Fytogreen; Dulux; Revolution
Enviro-Septic; Taylex;
Roofing; Ritek ; CSR Bradford;
Ozzie Kleen; Worm
Elmich; Atlantis Cell; NZ Metal Roofing
Farm; Oztech; Atlantis;
Manufacturers Association Inc.; Fielders;
Allied Pumps; Biocycle;
Kalzip; Greenmark; Metro; NXT; Ardex
EcoGuardians; CST
membranes; Carter Holt Harvey (CHH);
PolyAir; The Green Wall Company;
Wastewater; Veolia; Ovivo;
Fletchers Insulation;
Wastewater Australia; Aquapoint
Stoddard; Zinco;
(AquaCELL); Purator; Humes;
Stratco
Rocla; Spel; H20 Pure Plus; Diston
Sustainable
materials,
wastewater
management - green roofs
Dual plumbing,
on site treatment
facilities
Sewage Purification; RainBird;

IRRINet; Hunter Water; Ri-Industries
NEW ZEALAND
G reen B uilding in ne w z e a l a nd
Respondents profile
NEW ZEALAND
In New Zealand, the respondent size comprised 110 professionals from the domestic building and construction industry. 60% of all New
Zealand survey participants were employed in professional services as architects, engineers or consultants.
A range of company sizes were represented with small enterprises making up the largest share.
Subcontractor
2%
Main
contractor,
builder
21%
52
101
and more:
Owner/
Developer
19%
22%
Professional
services:
architect,
engineer,
consultant
58%
11-100 =
36%
1-10 =
42%
GREEN BUILDING ACTIVITY

81% of survey participants in New Zealand said they had been involved in green building in the period between 2008-2014. Hence, weconclude
there is a substantial degree of green building in New Zealand as well, even if the number still lags somewhat behind Australia.
In contrast with Australia, where 100% of owners and developers declared involvement, it was the Professional Services group among our New
Zealand respondents that showed the highest share of green building affiliation.
0%
100%
90%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Professional
Services
90%
Developer
89%
80%
70%
60%
77%
Owner
50%
Contractor/
Subcontractor
40%
58%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2014
NZ
AUSTRALIA
53

Of all the New Zealand survey participants, just 24% reported that they were involved in projects that had been certified by an accredited
agency. This might imply that the importance of green building recognition in the New Zealand construction market is still in its early stages
and/or that the obstacles to obtaining certification as described below still outweigh the perceived benefits.
Comparably with the Australian experience, for those firms that had had projects certified, the Green Star administered by the Green
Building Council of New Zealand was the most favoured choice, with about 47% of the formally registered projects.
YES
24%
Others: GBCA
Green Star,
Green Mark etc.
33%
NO
76%
Home Star
20%
54
GBCNZ
Green Star
47%
GROWTH EXPECTATIONS
FOR GREEN BUILDING
- BY BUILDING CATEGORY -
no growth
strong growth
According to the New Zealand-based respondents, the

categories of education, publicly funded/community/
legal and single residential offer the most opportunities
for the growth of Green Building.
Comparing the chart with that for Australia, it is clear that
the future development of the New Zealand green building
sector is still highly dependend on upon governmentally
supported areas. Conversely, commercial/office was
ranked only fifth, which highlights the disparity between
Australia and New Zealand in terms of the adopting of green
building principles within the private sector.
Education
2.6
Publicly funded/
community/legal
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.7
Single Residential
2.5
Multi Residential
2.5
Commercial/
Office
2.8
2.81
2.2
Healthcare
2.4
2.1
Hospitality
2.2
1.9
Retail
2.1
1.9
Industrial
2.1
New Zealand
Australia
55
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
80%
REASONS FOR
INVOLVEMENT
IN GREEN BUILDING

73%

value/marketability
Benefit from positive publicity/be seen
as a good corporate citizen
64%
65%

59%
64%
Lifecycle cost reduction has the clear lead as the most important
objective, with concern for the environment a reasonably close
second choice. Not far behind is the intention to gain enhanced value
and marketability through green building credentials.
Interestingly, there are some strong differences as well as similarities
between the attitudes of the various respondent types. On the whole,
the contractors and subcontractors are more inclined to find benefit
in getting involved, including, like their Australian counterparts, to be
eligible to win Government tenders!
One could summarise by saying there is a healthy balance between
what is good for the business and what is good for the environment!
82%
58%
63%
52%
61%
36%
46%
33%
38%
New Zealand
0%
Australia
40%
20%
60%
81%
80%

75%
75%
76%
72%
68%

value/marketability
65%
62%
47%

100%
80%
81%
64%
47%
27%
28%
85%
72%
72%
25%
31%
88%
67%
67%
52%
Owner/Developer
56
86%
69%
72%
It is probably no great surprise that the ranking of the reasons for

New Zealand respondents to adopt green building principles in their
projects closely matches those of their Australian counterparts.
100%
39%
68%
60%
0%
REASONS AGAINST
INVOLVEMENT IN
GREEN BUILDING
As was recorded for the Australian market, cost related
issues, in particular, the costs of materials, were considered
the major obstacles for the industry to pursue green building
initiatives.
A slightly different picture emerged regarding the respondent
roles, with New Zealand builders and subcontractors being
noticeably more negative than the other respondents as well
as their counterparts in Australia.
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80%
100%
66%
Higher costs of
building materials
70%
Additional time and

48%
Additional time and

48%
54%
52%
Additional time and

48%
43%
45%

at design stage
45%
New Zealand
0%
Australia
20%
40%
60%
83%
Higher costs of
building materials
63%
92%
69%
Additional time and

48%
72%
56%
Additional time and

35%
Additional time and

35%
76%
56%
63%
56%

at design stage
34%
Owner/Developer
76%
57
FAMILARITY WITH
CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS
Knowledge of the Green Star systems does not appear to be as deep
in New Zealand as in Australia although the result may be diluted
between the responses for the New Zealand and Australian versions.
Making allowances for that, it would seem that around 30% of
respondents are claiming detailed or expert knowledge compared with
45% in Australia.
Regarding the awareness of International systems, there was quite
adrop from the local to the UK BREEAM and US LEED systems with a
similar gap between these and the local regional schemes. However,
one respondent did claim detailed knowledge of the Vietnamese Lotus
system.
58
dont know (1)
expert knowledge (5)
Green Star
(Australia)
2.6
Green Star
(New Zealand)
2.9
LEED (US)
1.8
BREAAM (UK)
1.8
1.3
Green Mark
1.4
CGBC (Canada)
BEAM Plus
(Hongkong)
1.2
GBI (Malaysisa)
1.2
TREES (Thailand)
1.2
Greenship (Indonesia)
1.2
BERDE (Philippines)
1.1
Lotus (Vietnam)
1.1
THE INTENTION OF SEEKING

PREFERRED GREEN BUILDING

CERTIFICATION
Although, at 37%, the percentage of respondents who indicated they are very
likely or somewhat likely to seek official green building certification was behind
that of Australia, this does represent a substantial improvement over the 24%
that had sought accreditation for previous projects.
As was to be expected given the familiarity with the various schemes

demonstrated earlier, the Green Building Councils are the dominant options
with the UK BREEAM and US LEED systems having minority shares.
We will later explore the sentiments for and against pursuing certification and
addressing those issues may help to convert the 21% of respondents who are
committed to stick to green building principles while still not seeking certification.
LEED (US)
2%
Not seeking for
certification,
but sticking
to Green Building
standards 21%
Very likely
14%
Green Star
(Australia)
46%
BREEAM (UK)
4%
NZ
Green Star
48%
Somewhat
likely
23%
Very
unlikely
17%
Somewhat
unlikely
25%
59
PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF CERTIFICATION BY

BUILDING CATEGORY
The industry professionals in New Zealand rate the utility of certification
for the various building categories similarly to their Australian counterparts
although there is not a divide between two classes more a steady
gradation.
Commercial offices and education head the list, closely followed by
healthcare and public buildings.
However, New Zealand shows a bit more optimism for hospitality and
single residential than Australia while slightly more pessimistic for the retail
and industrial sectors.
completely useless
1
completely useful
4
THE MAIN REASONS FOR NOT SEEKING CERTIFICATION

The cost of the certification process is head and shoulders above all the other
reasons deterring the New Zealand professionals from seeking certification. Extra
requirements for staff time is ranked the second reason and also reinforces the
cost issue. Further, clients are perceived not to appreciate the value of certification,
but as with the Australian experience, there may be limits to how education of
clients may mitigate the perceived cost barrier.
We found it interesting that the New Zealand respondents found the factors of
difficulty of certification and the level of requirements were less onerous than
the Australians but wont buy into any inter-country rivalry about professional
qualification standards.
We were however a little concerned at a number of the informal comments which
the participants posted which suggested that some aspects of the certification
process were not always appropriate to the circumstances of the development.
0%
Commercial/
Office
3.2
Cost of
certification process
Education
3.2
Staff time required
Healthcare
3.2
Lacking credit being given to

certification by our clients
Public funded/
Community/Legal
20%
40%
62%
38%
37%
3.1
Difficulty of certification process
33%
3.0
Multi Residential
Hospitality
2.8
Gap between design promises and the

performance reality
33%
Single Residential
2.8
Lacking information on
certification requirements
33%
60
Retail
2.6
Industrial
2.6
Time of certification process

Requirements too high
60%
32%
23%
80%
0%
SALES GROWTH
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
The pattern of sales growth in New Zealand fairly closely
matches that observed in Australia. 7% of firms in our survey
attributed significant sales growth to green building activity
with a further 11% reporting some growth. In our working
figures, Little growth was also reported by a further 35% of
respondents.
Looking at the results according to respondent type, we noted
that the design and engineering professionals witnessed the
largest sales increase, followed by owners and developers.
20%
40%
60%
100%
80%
100%
7%
6%
Significant
11%
14%
Some
67%
69%
Little/None
16%
11%
Dont Know
Australia
New Zealand
0%
Significant
80%
20%
40%
60%
5%
9%
4%
14%
12%
Some
4%
27%
Little/None
39%
31%
36%
Dont Know
27%
46%
Owner/Developer
61
0%
ADDITIONAL UPFRONT BUILDING

COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
20% or more
10%
4%
20%
We would like to be more enthusiastic about this outcome but we

have to express our concern for the high value of 35% of respondents
who cannot provide an estimate for the additional upfront costs for
their projects.
8%
16%
12%
20%
19%
9%
5%
No impact
Dont Know
35%
28%
New Zealand
Australia
0%
20%
4%
18%
14%
12%
5%
13%
12%
0%
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
20%
14%
8%
Less than 5%
60%
12%
6%
5% to less than 10%
40%
9%
5%
60%
13%
13%
Less than 5%
20% or more
62
50%
12%
No impact
40%
7%
5% to less than 10%
The profiles for the estimate of actual additional costs was fairly
comparable with that for Australia clustering in the +5% to +15%
range. As is the case in Australia owners/developers are at the
upper limit of the estimates with contractors at the lower limit.
30%
18%
11%
12%
31%
36%
42%
SAVINGS IN OPERATING
COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO GREEN BUILDING
10%
0%
20% or more
7%
6%
In contrast with the Australian results, the owners and developers in

New Zealand appear less confident in the level of savings and look to
rank just below the professional services sector with their estimates.
40%
60%
10%
14%
13%
6%
Less than 5%
3%
13%
8%
47%
44%
Dont Know
Australia
New Zealand
0%
20%
9%
20% or more
4%
5%
5% to less than 10%

2%
0%
11%
14%
14%
18%
8%
8%
15%
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
60%
12%
12%
8%
Less than 5%
40%
8%
8%
5%
No impact
50%
9%
5% to less than 10%
No impact
As this is the first survey we have undertaken, we cannot make

comparisons with earlier expectations but the results appear to have
a similar profile to those for Australia and a significant proportion have
indicated savings of at least 5%.
30%
10%
11%
Lack of information regarding the degree of savings in operating costs

is even more prevalent in New Zealand with a surprisingly high 47%
of respondents taking the Dont Know option in our questionnaire.
20%
47%
46%
50%
63
0%
INCREASE IN BUILDING
VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
Unfortunately the degree of uncertainty regarding this issue
has gone beyond the 50% mark. However, we can draw the
conclusion from the responses of those participants who have
provided estimates that there are improvements in building value
attributable to green building but of a modest nature. 17% have
indicated improvements of at least 10%.
At slight variance with the results for the savings in operating
costs shown above, construction contractors and subcontractors
appear the most confident of the increase in building value for
green projects.
10%
20%
30%
6%
10%
12%
5% to less than 10%

6%
Less than 5%
16%
10%
10%
No impact
13%
Dont Know
Australia
0%
0%
0%
10%
5%
No impact
20%
30%
50%
60%
70%
3%
5%
5%
15%
9%
11%
6%
4%
6%
8%
15%
14%
18%
55%
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
40%
8%
5% to less than 10%

Less than 5%
56%
44%
New Zealand
0%
60%
6%
3%
20% or more
50%
5%
4%
20% or more
64
40%
50%
61%
INCREASE IN RETURN
ON INVESTMENT (ROI)
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
We have to approach this subject as it relates to the New
Zealand experience with some caution. Respondents
found it difficult to estimate operating cost savings and
improvements in building value and therefore we should not
be surprised that some 64% of the participants registered
aDont Know answer for their estimated increase in ROI.
0%
10%
Again at odds with their Australian counterparts, the

owners and developers would seem to have the lowest
rating for improvement in ROI behind the contractors and
subcontractors and the professional services sector.
30%
40%
8%
5% to less than 10%

6%
Less than 5%
16%
10%
11%
12%
No impact
Dont Know
Australia
10%
0%
No impact
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2%
4%
0%
4%
6%
5%
5%
4%
9%
9%
5% to less than 10%

Less than 5%
64%
50%
New Zealand
70%
6%
6%
60%
4%
5%
20% or more
50%
2%
2%
20% or more
0%
It is difficult to be definitive but we think it worth pointing out

that of the participants who did venture an estimate, the
median point of their responses was just over the 5% level.
20%
6%
4%
6%
8%
15%
14%
18%
55%
Dont Know
Owner/Developer
62%
68%
65
THE IMPORTANCE OF DESIGN

SOFTWARE TO OPTMISE
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
It would be fair to say the jury is out in New Zealand concerning this
subject.Theratingsaverage out at quite a low value with a considerable share
of the respondents judging the use of design software as Not Important in
thisarea.
66
not important (1)
very important (4)

2.2

2.2
Energy modelling/
baseline
2.2

natural ventilation
2.2
Evaluate and explore

alternative building
2.1

HVAC operating costs
2.0
Specify material
quantities
2.0
0%
TECHNOLOGIES
EMPLOYED IN GREEN
BUILDING PROJECTS
The stand out product in green building projects in New Zealand
was insulation with a 90% response rate perhaps the climate
conditions may account for this to be a basic assumption in
most construction projects.
This was followed at some distance by energy efficient/intelligent
lighting at 73%. The other leading items comprise the others
from the top 4 technologies as cited in the Australian survey,
namely rainwater and stormwater management/retention and
water efficient fixtures and fittings.
Apart from the result for insulation, generally the New Zealand
market appears to be trailing Australia in the adoption of these
green technologies and it will be interesting to see how quickly
this gap will close.
20%
40%
60%
80%
Insulation products for roofs,

ceilings, walls and pipes
90%
Energy efficient/
intelligent lighting
73%
Rainwater and stormwater

management/retention
69%
Water efficient
fixtures and fittings
68%
61%
Energy efficient appliances
58%
Renewable Energy Systems

Use of recycled or
renewable materials
46%
Sustainable wastewater
management
43%
Energy management Systems

(EMS)
38%
Responsible sourcing of bio-based and

renewable (raw)materials
32%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
31%
High efficiency packaged

HVCA systems
29%
Whole building
energy simulation
26%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
Co-generation and
tri-generation
Water sub-metering and leak
detection systems
100%
24%
10%
8%
67
Green
Building
Products and Technologies -
Marley; Hynds; Baileys;

Methven; Caroma; Kohler;
Aqua Tanks; Promax;
Dornbracht; Grohe; Econation; Watersmart;
Leap; Hansgrohe; Atlantis;
Action Tanks
Greens; Delabie;
MacDonalds Industries;
Dorf; Rheem;
Enware
Rainwater
ILD; Enware
Water efficient
fixtures and
fittings
Brand Recognition
We asked our respondents to

nominate 2 to 3 brands for each
ofthetechnologies that we had
previously identified. We then collated
the responses and have listed the
brands accordingto the frequency
ofmention.
Renewable
Energy Systems
L EA DE RS
WA NT E D!
Intelligent HVAC
monitoring systems
Whole building energy

simulation
SUNREL; Graphisoft (ArchiCAD,

EcoDesigner); IES (Integrated
Environmental Solutions); Huawei;
Bentley Hevacomp;
Energy Plus; GreenBeing
High efficiency
packaged HVAC
systems
Mitsubishi; Daikin; Simx ventilation

recovery units; Carrier; Powerpax;
Fantec; Fusion; 22 Degrees;
Zhender; Haden; Cleanaire
Energy
management Responsible
Systems (EMS) sourcing of
bio-based
and renewable
(raw) materials
Siemens; Honeywell;
Delta Controls; Daikin;
Carter Holt Harvey
TriStar; SMA; Schneider;
(CHH) Wood;
ECS; Warm and Cool
FSC; FPIS; Eco ply;
LVL Hyspan; Forest
stewardship council;
Inzide; TimSpec; JSC
Timber; Juken Nishu
68
Insulation
products for
roofs, ceilings,
walls and
Energy efficient/
pipes
intelligent
lighting
Co-generation
and tri-generation
Siemens; Honeywell; Eurotec;

Daikin; Schneider; Fusion;
22 Degrees; Haden; Cleanaire
Azzuro;
Mitsubishi;
Solar city; Alosun;
EECA; Meridian; Suntech;
Renesola; Apricus evacuated
tubes solar hotwater; AA solar; Solar
Farm; Powerhouse wind; Pink batts; NZ
solar; Pellet fire; Bosch; BP solar;
Ecosolar; Jemena
Fagerhult; Rexel; Targetti
and
stormwater
management/
retention
Water submetering and

leak detection
systems
No brands reported
Kingspan; Pink Batts;

Knauf; Autex; Earthwool; Insulpro;
CSR Bradford; Eco-Insulation;
Greenstuff; Forman Building Systems;
Formance; IKO Enertherm;
Formathane; Tarac; Terra
Philips; LED123; Trilux;
Lana; Suntech; PlaceMakers;
ECOWOOL; Tasman Insulation
Osram; ECCO; Deltalight;
New Zealand; Ellis Fibre;
Energy mad; Sensor lighting;
Mammoth; Big Green Spray
Foam; Celotex; Green Being;
Right light; Lighting; Switch;
Carter Holt Harvey (CHH)
GEC; PDL; Superflux; Thorn;
Energy efficient
appliances
Use of recycled or
renewable materials In tiles, carpets,
doors, paints
Sustainable
roofing solutions
Reflective
roofing
Sustainable
materials,
wastewater
management - green roofs
Dual plumbing,
on site treatment
facilities
Biolytix;
EcoEngineering;
Cleanstream;
Watersmart; Oasis;
EnviroSeptic
Fisher & Paykel; Miele; Bosch;

Asko; Dyson; Siemens; Gram; Haier;
Mitsubishi;LG; Smeg; Alba; AGA
Ontera; Opus; Autex; Rekindle;

Mannington; Shores;
Cavalier Bremworth; Wanaka
Wastebusters; Poly Palace;
Replas; Marmoleum;
Interface carpet
Equus;
De Boer; Viking Roofing;
Stormwater 360; Green Air;
Delta Controls; Nuralite; NZ Metal Roofing
Manufacturers Association;
Greenroofs NZ; Sika;
Kingspan; Lysaght
Equus; De Boer; Nuralite;

Colorsteel; Stormwater 360;
Green Air; Eco-Roofs; Greenroofs
NZ; NZMetal Roofing Manufacturers
Association; Sika; Resene;
DiamondDeck; Kingspan;
Carter Holt Harvey
(CHH); Fytogreen
GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT FOR

SOUTH EAST ASIA 2014
At the same time BCI Economics was surveying the Australian and New Zealand green building market,
we were also analysing responses from 523 developers, architects, main- and sub-contractors across
Southeast Asia to a questionnaire about their views on and experiences with green building.
In this survey, we found that around 7 in 10 respondents across the region stated that they had been
involved in some form of green building during the period of 2008-2014. Hong Kong led the way with
83% involvement with Singapore and Malaysia close behind at 82 %, comparing favourably with the
results for Australia (90%) and New Zealand (81%).
Overall, the South East Asian respondents were more prepared to proceed with green building
certification than their counterparts in Australia (34%) and New Zealand (24%). The average response of
46% however, masks a wide range of commitment with Hong Kong taking 90% of their green building
projects through to certification (and Singapore was close behind at 82%). On the other hand, Thailand
at 21% and Indonesia at 24% appear to be much less enthusiastic.
Attitudes for and against the adoption of green building principles in general and towards pursuing
certification as expressed by the South East Asian respondents were fairly comparable with those in ANZ
with the additional costs incurred in green building being balanced against the perceived commercial
benefits. Interestingly, although the upfront costs were perceived higher in South East Asia (a premium
of 11%) than in ANZ (6% to 7%), the financial benefits were also estimated to be higher. The average
savings in operating costs in South East Asia were estimated at 9% and the increase in the buildings
end value attributable to green building also averaged out at 9% compared with the ANZ estimates of
6% and 4% respectively.
Across the countries, water efficient fixtures and fittings stood out as being frequently incorporated into
green building projects together with energy efficient/intelligent lighting and insulation products although
the individual rankings did vary. And, as was done for Australia and New Zealand, we have reported the
popular brands identified by the participants in the South East Asian survey.
If we have sparked your interest you can easily access the results of the survey by downloading from:
GREEN
BUILDING
MARKET
REPORT
South East Asia
2014
Atondadvise
we are happy
that the
report may be
downloaded
free of charge!
http://www.bciasia.com/our-services/bci-economics/green-building-market-report-south-east-asia/
Publication date: 24th November 2014
69
METHODOLOGY
Research for this report was conducted under the supervision of Dr Matthias Krups PhD, Chairman
of BCI Media Group and spearheaded by Petra Berning, General Manager of BCI Economics.
The survey was taken online and analysed by BCI Economics in-house analysts. Between March
and May of 2014, invitations to participate in our online survey were sent out to a random sample
of contacts drawn from BCIs highly sophisticated industry database. Given that the decision to
participate in the survey was out of interest in the topic of green building, it is fair to assume that our
sample would be likely skewed in favour of sustainability principles.
In order to compare the 2014 results with the results ascertained in the prior surveys in 2006, 2008
and 2010, we utilised a questionnaire that was similar to the previous surveys. A few changes were
made to take account of the new conditions in the market.
For those issues where value judgements were canvassed, a 4 or 5 point Likert scale was adopted
with 1 representing a very negative rating and 4 or 5 a very positive rating.
70
DISCLAIMER
Information utilised in this report is current as of 1 September 2014. This information has been prepared without
taking your specific needs or objectives into account. Because of this you should consider its appropriateness
with regard to your objectives or needs before acting on this information. BCI Economics does not warrant
the accuracy or completeness of the information in this publication, and accepts no, and disclaims all, liability
for any loss or damage whether occasioned by reliance on such information or otherwise. The information
is subject to change without notice and BCI Economics is under no obligation to update the information or
correct any inaccuracy which may become apparent at a later date.
BCI Economics
CONTACTS
Matthias Krups PhD
Damian Eastman
CEO BCI Media Group
E: m.krups@bcimediagroup.com
P: 0421 381 000
Petra Berning
COO Australia/NZ
General Manager BCI Economics
E: d.eastman@bciaustralia.com
P: (07) 3634 8500
E: p.berning@bcimediagroup.com
P: (+49) 2501 809875
Don Smith
Sarah Murphy
Senior Analyst BCI Economics
ANZ Research Manager
E: d.smith@bciaustralia.com
P: (02) 9432 4124
E: s.murphy@bciaustralia.com
P: (07) 3634 8565

Green Building Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Building Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Building Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the key findings from past surveys on green building?

What are some of the key findings from past surveys on green building?

What are some of the barriers to green building mentioned in the report?

What are some of the barriers to green building mentioned in the report?

GREEN

RMIT Swanston Street - credit Lyons Architects

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

Dr. Matthias Krups

Chairman & CEO

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D

The Floor is Yours

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

Schueco Aluminium Window System 112.IC - Uf = 0.80 W/(m2K)

Schueco Aluminium Window System 90.SI+ - Uf = 1.0 W/(m2K)

Schueco Aluminium Window System 75.SI+ - Uf = 1.3 W/(m2K)

Schueco Aluminium Window System 65 - Uf = 2.2 W/(m2K)

Schueco Aluminium Window System 60 - Uf = 2.6 W/(m2K)

Schueco Aluminium Window System 50 - Uf = 3.0 W/(m2K)

Schueco Aluminium Window System 70.HI - Uf = 1.6 W/(m2K)

Whatever level of performance you require,

Chief Executive of Green Building

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D

Contact us to discuss your next project

One Central Park - Green Facades completed by Tensile

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

Green Star-rated buildings emit around a third of the

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

A smart business decision

Healthier places to heal

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

Improved productivity and learning

Delivering higher returns

A future proofed investment

A competitive edge in a crowded market

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

An employee retention tool

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

GREEN BUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D

Kingspan insulation. You wont just feel

There is a science to achieving high performance

The science extends to our insulation ranges.

To ensure you maximise their superior thermal

Tel: 1300 247 235

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT A USTRALIA/NEW Z EALAND

G reen B uilding in A u s t ralia

When we analysed the degree of involvement in green

GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT AU ST R AL I A/N E W ZE AL AN D