Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
IR/PS CSR Case #07-09

The U.S. Green Building Council:
Designer of the Green Building Industry
By: James W. Snavely

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PACIFIC STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Prepared for Professor Peter Gourevitch
Edited by Jennifer Cheng 2008
Corporate Social Responsibility
Winter 2007

Abstract: The focus of this paper is to inform the reader of the process that determines thestandards that define what it means to “build green”. The author acknowledges the U.S Green
Building Council (USGBC) as the industry leading organization that is responsible for thedevelopment of those standards. The author outlines the executives, committee formation,
voting structure, and monitoring of the USGBC and their influence on the development of thegreen building industry. Additionally, the accreditation program for industry experts that serveas third party monitors is profiled. Lastly, the author highlights critiques of the USGBC and thepotential influence of politics on USGBC decisions.

2

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.

Table of Contents
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................................3
A. The Green Building Movement........................................................................................3
B. Benefits..............................................................................................................................3
C. Regulatory Bodies ............................................................................................................4
II. U.S. Green Building Council ...............................................................................................5
A. Overview ............................................................................................................................5
B. Key Players ........................................................................................................................6
C. LEED Certification.............................................................................................................8
III. CSR Problem: Why do members join? .............................................................................9
IV. How USGBC Benefits Members ......................................................................................10
A. Knowledge & Resources ...................................................................................................10
B. Committees & Voting Power.............................................................................................10
V. Analyzing Integrity of USGBC..........................................................................................13
VI. Critics................................................................................................................................16
VII. Case Study: The Timber Industry..................................................................................19
IX. Further Issues ...................................................................................................................21
X. Discussion Questions ..........................................................................................................22
XI. Footnotes and Verifications..............................................................................................23

3

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
I. Introduction
A. The Green Building Movement
While still in its nascent stages, the Green building movement has been a steadily
growing phenomenon. In fact, according to a U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) power
point presentation, in the last five years alone the dollar value of green construction projects has
increased from $3.24 billion to $10 billion (1). Green buildings are designed, built andmaintained to improve the environmental impact, economic benefits, health, and productivity ofboth the building and its inhabitants. A true green building entails water conservation, energy
efficiency and renewable energy while being constructed with environmentally friendly
materials. The incentives are great for the players in the development, construction andmanagement of green properties. Although immeasurable, companies that are associated withgreen architecture are viewed as progressive and undoubtedly benefit from this pro-environment
public image. The environmental benefits of green properties are numerous. Research from the
USGBC indicates these benefits range from reduced solid waste to less green house gas
emissions. Green buildings have been proven to conserve natural resources and protect
biodiversity and the local ecosystem. To date, the health benefits focus primarily on occupantcomfort, natural light, noise control, improved air and water quality all feature prominently ingreen buildings. Interestingly, studies have shown an increase in worker productivity andstudent learning in green buildings and schools (2).

B. Benefits
Arguably the most prominent benefits in the minds of the developers and managers of green
buildings are generally economic. For instance, the practice of streamlined permitting forbuildings with green features is becoming more common. Clearly developers who can turn4

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
around their projects and get them to market quicker are obviously going to benefit financially.
However, the primary argument behind making money in green architecture is that there arecustomers that value the gains from going green and they are willing to pay for it. Perhaps themost easily measured economic benefit comes from reduced operating costs. More often thannot savings from energy use is the primary economic benefit from green buildings. Studies showthat green buildings use less than half the energy of conventional buildings (3). Other savings
comes from the reduction in water use. In addition to using less water, many green buildings arebeing built with self-contained water collection and treatment systems that use the collectedwater for irrigation and toilet flushing. Going green also renders financial benefits in the overall
asset value and profitability of the property. Green buildings cost less to operate thanconventional counterparts and their resale and rental values reflect this accordingly. A primeexample of the potential benefits that are enticing developers to go green is the Banner Bank
Building in Boise, Idaho. This building is considered to be in the upper echelon on green
buildings in the United States today. In terms of cost savings, the Banner building uses 65% lessenergy and 80% less water that conventional buildings. The developer, the Christensen
Corporation, asserts this reduction in operating costs equated to a 32.4% return on investment.
Furthermore, they claim that increased focus on occupant comfort is directly responsible for thehigh renter occupancy (4).

C. Regulatory Bodies
Laws from all levels of government are the final component driving the green building
movement. Many federal agencies and departments such as NASA, the Department of Healthand Human Services, the EPA and others mandate that all construction projects built with federal

5

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
funds above a certain dollar figure or square footage achieve Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) certification. Currently, the U.S Army, Navy and Air Force only
encourage LEED certification but are moving in the direction of requiring certification for
military construction. At the state level, 22 states have incorporated LEED certification in someform or another. The most common adoption is the edict that all publicly funded buildings
above varying square footage meet certification. However, in what is perhaps the start of a wider
trend, Maryland requires that all development projects greater than 5,000 gross square feet in thestate capital meet LEED certification (5). Additionally, state and local governments are
increasingly offering tax credits and other financial incentives to developers of green buildings.
For instance, from 2005-2009 the New York State Green Building Tax Credit Program is slated
to give $25,000,000 in tax credits to firms involved in the construction of green buildings (6).
II. U.S. Green Building Council
A. Overview
As the quality and quantity of incentives has matured, so too has the number of green companies
who are looking to capitalize in the new industry. This industry wide growth prompted the needfor an industry wide standard that encompassed just what it meant to build green. The U.S.
Green Building Council was the first organization to fill this need and establish the industry
standards. The USGBC is the nation’s leading coalition of companies and organizations fromacross the green building industry. USGBC consists of 100 full time staff, 75 regional chapterswith 7,500 member organizations ranging from building owners, real estate developers, facility
managers, architects, designers, engineers, general contractors, subcontractors, product andbuilding system manufacturers, government agencies, and nonprofits (7). The USGBC’s focus
on sustainable building led to the creation and implementation of the voluntary, consensus based

6

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. LEED
certification is the proof that a building has been inspected by an independent, third-party and isan environmentally responsible, profitable, and a healthy place to live and work.
B. Key Players
A closer look at the leading people of USGBC and its broader member base is required in orderto support their position. The U.S. Green Building Council’s board of directors is made up to 27
directors with 6 additional directors on the executive committee. The current chairman of theboard is Sandy Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins has worked in real estate development and theconstruction industry for over 30 years and has been involved with projects worth over $750
million (8). He is the founder of Consilience, LLC, a consulting, development and project
management firm that focuses on green building. Mr. Wiggin founded and actively chairs thePhiladelphia chapter of the USGBC and is a director of the Energy Coordinating Agency (ECA).
The ECA is a private, non-profit that focuses on access to safe, affordable and reliable sources ofenergy and water for low income people. Mr. Wiggin also serves as a director on thePennsylvania Resource Council, a national leader in waste reduction and recycling.
Additionally, Mr. Wiggin is an active director for the Delaware Valley Smart Growth Alliance,
an organization that promotes smart growth projects by advising proposed projects prior todevelopment approval. A second member of USGBC’s executive committee is S. Richard
Fedrizzi, the President, CEO & Founding Chairman of the U.S. Green Building Council. Mr.
Fedrizzi’s green career started when he founded Green-Think Inc. an environmentally focusedmarketing and consulting firm for the residential and built environments. With Mr. Fedrizzi on
the council, the USGBC has initiated three new rating systems and partnered with the Clinton
Climate Initiative to implement green building programs in 40 of the world’s largest cities. Mr.

7

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Fedrizzi is considered the driving force behind USGBC’s commitments to green schools and thecouncil’s movement to combat global climate change (8).
The current chair elect on USGBC’s executive committee is Rebecca L. Flora. Ms. Florais currently the executive director of the Green Building Alliance (GBA), a non-profit
organization that focuses on the green education and project facilitation. Ms. Flora was also thehead accreditor for Pittsburgh's $350 million convention center project, the first green
convention center in the world. Additionally, Ms. Flora is a graduate school adjunct professor insustainable community development at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School of Public
Policy and Management. The current treasurer of USGBC’s executive committee is Mr. Van
Belleghem, a CPA with over 18 years of experience in real estate development. Mr. Van
Bellegham is also a managing partner in Windmill Developments, a Green Building
development company and the president and founder of BuildGreen Development Inc, a green
project consulting firm. The last member of USGBC’s executive committee is Gail Vittori, thecurrent secretary. Ms. Vittori has worked at Maximum Potential Building Systems, a non-profit
design firm that focuses on sustainable planning, design and demonstration for 25 years. Ms.
Vittori is also a founding member of the Healthy Building Network, a national network of green
building professionals, environmental and health activists committed to making improvements inpublic health (8).
The remaining 27 directors come from an array of reputable organizations. Naturally, themost represented companies are a diverse grouping of green building organizations. GreenTime
LLC, Ecotrust, Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment, Sustainable Products Corporation
and Yarmuth Radoff Green Sustainability Consultants are a few from this category. However,
the other companies that are represented by the board members are extremely diverse. For

8Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
instance, Tony Gale, Starbucks Coffee Company’s Corporate Architect sits on the board. Mr.
Gale oversees the design and construction standards on all Starbuck's coffee houses. Also,
Timothy S. Carey, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Power Authority
is also a board member. Additionally, Dan Burgoyne, the Sustainability Manager for the State ofCalifornia's Department of General Services is a director. Mr. Burgoyne’s implements
sustainable building, energy and resource efficiency at the California state level. Lastly, Lisa
Shpritz, a Vice President of Corporate Workplace for Bank of America in Charlotte, North
Carolina is also on the board. Mrs. Shpritz is responsible for environmental programs andimplementation for over 90 million square feet in Bank of Americas across the country. The
upper echelon of the USGBC appears to be composed of accomplished people from highly
reputable companies. While only one component to establishing legitimacy, USGBC’s staff is apositive selling point for their credibility.
C. LEED Certification
In particular, LEED certification focuses on six major areas of efficiency and design; siteplanning, water management, energy management, material use, indoor environmental air
quality, and the innovation and design process (9). Additionally, the LEED rating system takesthese six areas and creates individual specifications according to building type. For instance,
New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell Development,
Homes, Schools, and Neighborhood Development all have their own rating system. The actual
certification process entails awarding points for meeting certain requirements and then tallying
the points to determine the LEED rating. Currently, the USGBC has established four levels of
LEED, platinum, gold, silver and certified. For a project to be considered for LEED certification
it must meet all LEED specified prerequisites and thereby achieve the Certified level of LEED9

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
project certification. More requirements must be met thereby earning more points to move up
the scale to the more stringent levels. At the end of the certifying process, LEED will bestow thebuilding with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certificationlevel.
This rating system is actively developed via a consensus voting system that begins whenvolunteers on the LEED Steering Committee approve a recommendation to the USGBC board of
directors. If the board decides to move forward with the release of a product or item they believe
meets LEED standards, the USGBC’s due paying members are then given the opportunity tocomment and vote on the product or item. Approval mandates a two-thirds vote by at least 10%of the members for a standard to be approved. At first glance, this process seems odd, themembers of the USGBC are the firms and organizations that serve to benefit from attaining
LEED certification. However, these are the same members that set the rules of what exactly
LEED certified means. Are these member organizations setting the bar low so they can achievecertification at low costs or are they setting the bar high in order to distinguish themselves fromconventional firms? Coupled with that fact that in the past five years voting members in the
USGBC has grown by over 500%, understanding the benefits of membership might help todecipher the USGBC’s role.
III. CSR Problem: Why do members join?
As outlined above, the health, environmental and economic gains from going green
continue to have a growing acceptance. However, the question arises to why firms ororganizations interested in these benefits are compelled to accept the USGBC’s standards inorder to recognize the gains. Why does the USGBC have over 7,500 member organizations that
pay anywhere from $300-$12,500 annually? While this quantity of reputable business further

10

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
helps to legitimize the USGBC as the nation’s leading green architecture coalition, a further
evaluation determining why exactly these members want to be a part of the organization is
warranted. It seems necessary to determine if their inclusion is entirely self-interested at theexpense of environmentally best practices.
IV. How USGBC Benefits Members
A. Knowledge & Resources
Simply put, the USGBC promotes itself as the industry leading resource for green
building. They claim to have more knowledge and access to practical experience than any otherorganization. Their information and technical experience is designed to be used as a blueprint
for firms that want to go green. The first benefit that members gain is discounts on USGBC andLEED programs and publications. These discounts range anywhere from $50-$5,000 on expos,
seminars, manuals and project registration and certification fees (10). A second benefit is accessto USGBC resources that are entirely in-house. Research reports and a database of past LEED
certified reports are available for members to use and implement on their own projects.
Additionally, the networking ability that comes with membership and access to the USGBC’s
directory is viewed as a premium on membership. With membership growing at over 1,000 new
members a year it appears that many support the notion that the USGBC is the primary green
building association.
B. Committees & Voting Power
Additionally, their LEED certification is the national benchmark that distinguishes green
buildings from conventional ones. In my opinion, the most enticing member benefit is the ability
to serve on committees and the ability to vote on what exactly it means to be LEED certified.
The USGBC claims that its committees are the core component in their ability to provide

11

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
industry guidelines for green buildings. While consensus voting by all of the members is thecommon practice, the committees are labeled the primary shapers of future LEED and green
building practices. Any member of USGBC can serve on an array of committees that are
specifically designed to include a diverse selection of member categories. As seats become
available, existing committee members nominate and elect new members to fill certain positions
while the executive committee reserves the right to appoint committee Chairs and Vice Chairs.
The USGBC’s guidelines state that the Chair or Vice Chair of the LEED Steering Committee,
the most influential committee, must be a Council Board member. Interestingly, at the time ofwriting, there were no openings on any USGBC’s committees. I would argue this fact to be aclear indication that volunteering on a committee and having a voice in decision making isvalued. Furthermore, it seems hard to believe that USGBC members would volunteer their time
unless there was some kind of return on their effort. I would further argue that their role as anunbiased industry standard architect would be supported if the USGBC’s committees are indeed
formed from a broad spectrum of individuals with a variety of self-interests and their entire
member organization is given voting power. However, while not stating this is not the case,determining this in every decision made by every committee that involves a LEED product or
rating is a difficult task.
A closer look at how LEED committees are organized renders information into the
influence that committee members are given. According to LEED’s 2006 Committee Charter
Report (pgs. 1-26), the most influential LEED committees are the Steering Committee and theManagement Sub-Committee. In conjunction with the USGBC board of directors, these twocommittees are charged with the establishment and enforcement of the LEED product line andrating system. They are further charged with delegation responsibilities and overseeing all

12

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
LEED committee activities. In short, all major decisions that involve LEED products and rating
system go through these two committees at some point. Additional committees that holdinfluence are the Horizontal and Vertical Market Committees. These two groups are charged
with the criteria and technical development of individual products and products that span entire
building sectors. The Technical Advisory Group is another committee that plays an importantrole in the LEED system. This group is responsible for LEED products meeting the technicalrequirements of the LEED rating system. Other committees that are given a voice are individual
chapter steering committees. These committees work with state and local governments to ensure
LEED products meet local laws or the local laws are negotiated to encompass LEED products.
At first glance it is arguable that a conflict of interest exists amongst the members of the
USGBC’s committees and their decision making power. LEED committees have the power todirect which products are voted on to become LEED certified and therefore have the ability tosteer decisions into personal profit making outcomes. To protect against this event, the LEED
Committee Policy Manual has a “Conflict of Interest Policy” requiring that voting members who
have a conflict of interest must disclose this to the USGBC (11). The corresponding committee
shall then decide whether the individual will be allowed to vote on the subject at hand.
However, at the time of writing, the inquiries the author made to the USGBC as to the frequency
of committee members not being allowed to vote rendered no information to answer thisquestion. A further check on an individual committee member pursuing a personal interest
policy is the practice of assuring that a minimum of five member categories are represented on
all LEED product committees. This balance is designed to assure a broad set of expertise andinterests in the decision making processes.

13

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Perhaps the strongest step the USGBC has taken to assure legitimacy is allowing their
entire member base to voice their opinion and vote on the development of LEED products andstandards. Detailed product policies are available for all members to review and can be readily
attained at the organization’s website. A potential LEED product begins with identifying amarket niche and determining the scalability of the product. If the Steering committee believes
the product viable, they approve the formation of a Core Product Committee to commence
product development. This committee is then comprised of both appointed and elected membersthat meet a specified criterion outlined by the Executive Committee. If the product proves
technically sound by the Technical Advisory Group the committee is given the green light topilot the product and report the findings to the USBGC board and Steering Committee. At thispoint, USGBC’s members are allowed to review the product and research and give feedback.
The Steering Committee then refines the product based on the member feedback and thenproceeds to ballot the product. If approved by two-thirds of those voting, the product is
implemented into the LEED rating system and the product is marketed to interested groups. The
LEED rating system is developed in largely the same manner. This development andimplementation process is an open and evolving process that continually incorporates newtechnologies and trends. The USGBC argues this consensus based voting system coupled withthe open balloting of new products ensures the integrity of LEED brands.
V. Analyzing Integrity of USGBC

In fact, the USGBC’s further argues that its interest in maintaining brand integrity is
perhaps the primary selling point as to why they should be accepted as the organization thatoutlines industry standards. The USGBC has the following: the professional member base that is

14

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
willing to pay them thousands of dollars annually; the consensus voting system that is viewed asfair and democratic; and a firm lock on the role of draftsman for the future of green building, an
industry whose dollar value has grown drastically in the last five years. In short, if the USGBC
are rational thinkers, they will recognize that times are good and any blight on the LEED brand iscounterproductive to the larger picture and future gains. Of course, determining the USGBC’s
ultimate agenda is extremely difficult. However, the USGBC has implemented additional
controls that they claim strengthens their LEED brand’s high level of quality. The first step the
USGBC took was to keep all licensing of their LEED in-house and not by a third party. They
believe this certifies a high standard that cannot be compromised by decision makers other thanthemselves. They also position themselves as the experts in the field by creating and offering
credible sources of green building education sources. They argue that if their member base isgiven access to information about the leading technology, most recent case studies, market
research reports, and workshops their position as the leading source for green information isfurther cemented. Lastly, the USGBC places emphasis on maintaining high levels of
consistency, stringency and quality across all their LEED brands in order to deliver a highquality product.
The USGBC also feels their LEED professional accreditation program supports theirposition as the industry leader for all things green. A LEED Professional Accreditation is proof
that an individual comprehends green building practices and principles, can steer a project
towards meeting the LEED certifications and is an expert in the LEED rating system. In fact,many green projects mandate that a LEED Accredited Professional (AP) be involved andprojects actually receive a LEED point for staffing a LEED AP. The LEED AP assists thedeveloper to make sure the project will eventually meet LEED requirements and helps process

15

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
the legal documents that hold the ultimate responsibility for the determination of the LEED
certification. The LEED AP is essentially the outsourced monitor for the USGBC who does not
actually inspect the building themselves. Like all systems, the USGBC’s can fall victim to fraud
especially lacking an individual 3rd party inspection of the buildings. However, the author argues
that there are a few incentives as to why the USGBC’s system might prove sound. Besides
reputation, the primary incentives for the developers and monitors to do honest work are thefinancial benefits from constructing a true green building. A falsely labeled green building will
not provide the desired cost savings the developer seeks and hiding this from potential buyers or
renters would be difficult. Furthermore, the differentiating qualities of a green building areeither present or they are not. The building either uses less water, allows for more natural light,
has better air quality or it doesn’t. Falsifying documents on these subjects by either thedeveloper or the LEED AP seems difficult. None the less, LEED AP appears to play a highly
influential position in the certification process.
There are currently over 35,000 LEED accredited professional is a testament to the scaleof the green building industry. Examining the process of how a person becomes LEED
accredited is necessary to help determine their credibility and motivation in the overall process.
First off, there are no barriers to entry for taking the certification test. However, the USGBC
does encourage the individual to have experience in the field and prior knowledge of LEED
before signing up for the $250-$350 test. Regarding the content of the tests, the USGBC writes,
The development of a valid exam begins with a clear and concise
definition of the knowledge, skills and abilities needed in order tosuccessfully serve as a LEED Accredited Professional. Psychometricians
work with experts in the green building industry to identify criticalcomponents of the roles and responsibilities of an individual supporting
the LEED certification process (12).

16

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Additionally, the USGBC claim there tests to reflect current standards and business practices.
Interestingly, LEED identifies six building types but only offers three corresponding exams andclearly states that passing any one test will allow the individual to serve as LEED AP for all theothers. Subject matter experts are the final authority in grading the 200 point test. If a candidate
receives a grade of 170 or above then they are deemed a “LEED Accredited Professional” (13).
The USGBC website nor the author’s inquiries revealed any information as to the failure rate of
the tests. An interesting conflict of interest arises when evaluating LEED’s accreditation
process. The USGBC is currently the market leader and receives economic benefits from thisposition. In order to be in this position they need the green market to be viable and for the green
market to be viable there has to be LEED APs out in the field doing business. Therefore, the
USGBC has a vested interest in accrediting individuals and expanding the industry. Again, the
USGBC believes that their brand is only credible because of the high standards and would most
likely argue that if their accredited professionals lacked expertise then their brand would
ultimately suffer. Whether this is the case or not is extremely difficult to determine. However,researching the critics of the USGBC and their LEED products does offer a glimpse into thecredibility of their organization.
VI. Critics
Interestingly, the author found very few resources when researching USGBC and LEED
critics. Whether this can be attributed to the USGBC doing their job well, a lack ofknowledgeable critics or the fledgling industry as a whole is difficult to say but none the lessnoteworthy. The primary critique the author found of the USGBC and their LEED rating systemcame from Randy Udall and Auden Schendler. Auden Schendler is a LEED AP and is the
Director of Environmental Affairs at Aspen Skiing Company. Randy Udall is the director of the

17

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Community Office for Resource Efficiency in Aspen, Colorado. As of 2005, the two critics hadbuilt two LEED rated buildings, had six more in the planning stage, built a passive solar home,consulted on multiple green building developments, and designed the world’s first renewableenergy mitigation program (14). The accomplishments of the two men appear to support theirability to professionally criticize the USGBC.
Mr. Udall and Mr. Schendler argue that, “…LEED has become costly, slow, brutal,
confusing, and unwieldy…the result: mediocre green buildings where certification, notenvironmental responsibility is the primary goal” (15). The first major criticism of the USGBC
and their LEED rating system the pair make is that the process of receiving LEED certification is
too costly. They argue the USGBC’s endorsement that going green does not cost more thanconventional building is false and encourage a recognition that additional costs do exist and areworth the money. The first additional costs they outline are LEED consultant fees that average
anywhere from $125 to $200 per hour. Additionally, they claim the price tag for ensuring abuilding meets the LEED required mechanical system rating averages $25,000. They also statethat a building’s energy system has to be simulated by a computer model which is difficult toaccomplish for less than $15,000 for a 20,000 square foot building. Lastly, the registration costs
that range in the low thousands further differentiates green from conventional building. The pair
supports the need for a LEED system and understands the necessity for associated costs.
However, Mr. Udall and Mr. Schneider believe that the lack of upfront information about costs
has hurt the willingness of developers to adopt the LEED standards and slowed the expansion of
the sector.
In light of these extra costs, they argue that if the true goal of green architecture is tomake environmentally progressive architecture then available funds should be spent on just that

18

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
and should receive just compensation by the LEED rating system. This second argument
revolves around what Mr. Udall and Mr. Schneider refer to as “point mongering” (16). The twoargue that the prestige of being LEED certified encourages developers to seek out LEED credits(points) rather than focus on the end goal of constructing a green building. They place the blameon the rating system that holds all credits equal and does not mandate certain kinds of credits.
For instance, conserving energy is considered a staple of the green building movement. Heatrecovery systems and other green energy systems can run into the hundreds of thousands or evenmillions of dollars. As of 2005, the rating system awarded a LEED point for installing one ofthese costly systems. The two critics argue that the problem lies with equivalent points being
awarded for installing bike racks or the installation of an electric car charging station. In theory,
with only 26 of 67 points necessary to achieve LEED certification, it is possible for a building to
be “greenwashed” and achieve LEED certification without an efficient energy system. Mr. Udall
and Mr. Schneider believe that energy efficiency is mandatory in a green building and the
USGBC should therefore mandate a minimum level of energy credits. They argue that pointmongering undermines the credibility of the USGBC and the green sector as a whole. They
expand their criticism by adding that this is but one example of the USGBC deciding protocol
based on consensus rather than scientific analysis.
The two authors add that the entire LEED rating system should be more user friendly. A
prime example they give took place when they were in the process of certifying one of theirprojects. The two claim that the entire process took so long that by the time they compiled all
the required paperwork new lighting credit requirements had been issued and they were back tosquare one (17). They argue that the USGBC’s bureaucracy encumbers the certification process
and therefore the time it takes to get a building to market. This last point is particularly worrying

19

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
from a business standpoint. The USGBC’s credibility and market share might be hurt if
investors and developers feel the USGBC is going to be an obstruction in receiving a return on
their investment. They further believe the USGBC’s policy of not inspecting the building sites
themselves and solely relying on the paperwork adds to the USGBC’s faceless bureaucracy.
Additionally, they believe the rating system to be “severe and confrontational” rather than aconstructive learning process where both parties are interested in reaching a common goal. The
last suggestion the two authors make to the USGBC is to better position itself for mass appeal
and create a “LEED for Dummies” (18). They argue the overall process is too technical and that
there are barriers to adoption based on expertise.
The USGBC does face competition from other organizations that have developed theirown rating systems. Green Building Initiative, based in Portland, Oregon and Canada inparticular has been very active in lobbying state and local governments to require a green
building rating system that is not specific to any one organization. This competition is perhaps
the incentive the USGBC needs to ensure it maintains a high standard for its brand name productand rating system. If the LEED rating system becomes a hindrance or the quality is widely
viewed as suspect as Mr. Udall and Mr. Schneider argue, the USGBC will simply lose theirposition as the driving force behind the standards of the green building industry. There is no
doubt the board of directors at the USGBC are aware of this and are more likely than notworking to continually improve their products.
VII. Case Study: The Timber Industry
In researching this paper, the author found a very interesting case involving the USGBC
and the timber industry that is a good example of the potential influence of politics. As of 2006,
the timber industry was actively lobbying politicians to not adopt LEED certification for what

20

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
they claimed was the USGBC’s bias against wood. They argued that of the 69 total LEED
credits only one focused on wood as a construction material (19). The USGBC denied any suchbias but under the pressure decided to assemble the board of directors in order to address theissue. The board commissioned the preparation of a white paper and of a study by Sylvatica inNorth Berwick, Maine, an environmental consultancy firm to compare the “greenness” of woodin comparison to the rapidly renewable biobased materials that LEED currently certified. The
author admittedly is not an environmental scientist and does not have the background to judge
the USGBC’s actions. However, Sylvatica reported that LEED’s preference to certify rapidly
renewable biobased materials over wood “does not appear to be justified by the science” (20).
Additionally, the author of the white paper, Alex Wilson of BuildingGreen, Inc. clearly writes
that an advantage of incorporating change in the certification of wood, “might lessen timberindustry opposition to the Forest Stewardship Council”, the only timber certification system
accepted by LEEDS (21). While it is entirely possible that these comments were free of theinfluence of the timber industry, the implications of the comments are noteworthy in light of the
USGBC’s interests to lessen pressure from the timber industry’s powerful lobby.
VIII. Conclusion
This paper’s intent was to better inform the reader about the process that encompasses thedevelopment of the green building industry. Understanding who is making these decisions, how
they are making them, how the decisions are being monitored as well as the implications for theindustry allows a person to form his or her own opinion and questions. The professionalism of
the USGBC board members, the consensus voting structure, and the widespread acceptance of
the USGBC all support the USGBC as the industry standard developer. Furthermore, theiraccreditation program, which empowers individuals to act as the guides and monitors for green

21

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
developments, appears to be respected throughout the industry. However, while scientifically
based and reputable, it does appear that the USGBC identified a need and was simply the first to
market. Their open practice of continual refinement attests to the incipient stage of the industry.
IX. Further Issues
As the researcher and author of this paper there are multiple questions I have been left
with. The primary question revolves around the influence of politics and lobbying organizations.
There is no doubt that powerful influences exist when the potential dollar value associated with
the USGBC’s policy decisions are so vast. To what extent the USGBC makes decisions withthese influences in mind will yet be determined as the industry further develops. An additionalquestion focuses on the conflict of interests the committee members potentially face when voting
on LEED policies. The author would like to know the prevalence of committee members not
being allowed to vote due to a conflict of interest. These committees are compiled of players in
the green building industry and their decisions and voting power have serious economic impacts.
It would be noteworthy to discover if no one is ever asked to not vote. Furthermore, thefinancials behind the USGBC are not readily available. With the USGBC setting standards
based on scientific standards, it would be interesting to know the percentage of revenue the
USGBC spends on research and development. Lastly, considering the USGBC’s interest in
having LEED APs in the field, it would be equally revealing interesting to know the failure rate
for their accreditation tests.

22

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.

X. Discussion Questions
1. The author is interested in examining whether the interests of members detract from USGBC’s
ability to implement environmental best practices in the construction industry. What do you
conclude? Should some interests be more represented than others?
2. The author mentions that the U.S. Green Building Council faces competition from the Green
Building Initiative. Check out these competitors website and find out what their certification
standards are. Which standards give you more confidence in its integrity? Is USGBC really abetter standard or are they just better at branding because they are bigger?
3. Review Mr. Udall and Mr. Schendler’s qualms over USGBC. Are they valid? If so, what
measures can and should the USGBC take in order to ensure a future for sustainablearchitecture?
4. USBBC operates in an industry with many powerful lobbying groups and trade associations(see Eric Engelman’s paper), some of which they have incorporated as members. What should
USGBC do to respond to these pressures?
3. If the ultimate CSR goal in construction is to move towards sustainable environmental
practices in the industry, what, in your opinion, is the best way of attaining this goal? Getting
consensus over a majority of stakeholders and implement incremental change? Or just involvethe most innovate, forward-thinking “green” builders who might best accelerate change?

23

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.

XI. Footnotes and Verifications

1. Introduction to LEED and Green Building Power Point Presentation. Slides 4, 19. Retrieved
March 8, 2007, fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=742#15
2. Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings.
pg. 2. Retrieved March 8, 2007, fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/043003_hpgb_whitepaper.pdf
3. Making the Case for Green Building: Environmental News April 2005:
Retrieved March 7, 2007, fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=78
4. Profect Profile: Banner Bank Building Boise, Idaho. pg. 2:
Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2057
5. LEED Initiatives in Governments and Schools. pg. 7:
Retrieved March 6, 2007, from https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=691
6. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:
Retrieved March 10, 2007, fromhttp://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/grnbldg/index.html
7. USGBC website: Retrieved March 8, 2007, fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=1
8. USGBC Website: Retrieved March 10, 2007, fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/AboutUs/BoardMemberList.aspx?CMSPageID=131&
9 Introduction to LEED and Green Building Power Point Presentation. pg. 1
https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=742#15
10. USGBc Website: Retrieved March 05, 2007, fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=267&
11.LEED Foundation Policy Manual. pg. 11: Retrieved March 7, 2007, fromhttps://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2039
12. LEED Professional Accreditation Candidate Handbook: pg. 5 of 19: Retrieved March 8,
2007, from https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2158

24

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
13. LEED Professional Accreditation Candidate Handbook: pg. 6 of 19
https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2158
14. Schender, A. & Udall, R. (2005, October 26) LEED is Broken; Let’s Fix it. Grist
Environmental News and Commentary. Para. 77. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from:http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/leed/index1.html
15. Schender, A. & Udall, R. (2005, October 26) LEED is Broken; Let’s Fix it. Grist
Environmental News and Commentary. Para. 8. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from:http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/leed/index1.html
16. Schender, A. & Udall, R. (2005, October 26) LEED is Broken; Let’s Fix it. Grist
Environmental News and Commentary. Para. 27. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from:http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/leed/index1.html
17. Schender, A. & Udall, R. (2005, October 26) LEED is Broken; Let’s Fix it. Grist
Environmental News and Commentary. Para. 45. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from:http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/leed/index1.html
18. Schender, A. & Udall, R. (2005, October 26) LEED is Broken; Let’s Fix it. Grist
Environmental News and Commentary. Para. 76. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from:http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/leed/index1.html
19. USGBC Press Release: USGBC Board Tackles Wood Issue, 5/23/06: Retrieved March 8,
2007, from:http://www.usgbc.org/News/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=2322
20. USGBC Summary: Proposed Changes to Biobased Credits in LEED: Alex Wilson of
BuildingGreen, Inc., pg. 9. Retrieved March 6, 2007 from,https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1425
21. USGBC Summary: Proposed Changes to Biobased Credits in LEED: Alex Wilson of
BuildingGreen, Inc., pg. 9. Retrieved March 6, 2007 from,https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1425