# Life Cycle Analysis Challenges through Building Rating Schemes within the European Framework
## 1 Introduction
### Building Rating Systems (BRS)  
The issue about how many BRS exist worldwide is still open, in spite of the much quoted [31] and the regularly updated [32; 33] reports from BRE [34]. At that time, more than 600 tools that in some way measured or evaluated the environmental, economic, or social dimensions of the sustainability of buildings were reviewed. Some covered one, two, or all three dimensions. The types differed--147 were selected as environmental tools. Of these, 41 were checked and only 25 fully evaluated--seven for urban planning, three for design, seven for buildings, seven for LCA, and one for infrastructures. Currently, the World Green Building Council has evolved to become the main corporate body, updating what are called \"Green Building Rating Tools\" (GBRT). In 2016, their 55 GBRTs worldwide had certified 1.04 Bn m\({}^{2}\) of sustainably built floor areas [35]. Scientific research has paid attention to whether \"Green\" BRS can be compared, how they have evolved, and how many aspects of sustainability they include [36]. Primarily Asian researchers have shown an interest in the regional differences of the prevailing \"Green\" BRS and their future research directions [37]. Additionally, in Europe, the importance of \"Green\" BRS to attain sustainable buildings is coming into focus [38] under similar premises (the most common BRS compared in scoring terms) with the added value of Level(s).  
In our research, the updated version of Level(s) is analysed and five BRS are mapped against it with a focus on LCA and decarbonisation potential in Europe. The idea of harmonising existing BRS has been scanned before, however, not by taking Level(s) into account [39] The BRS align with a common framework contribute with the creation of an assessment method/process able to compare and benchmark buildings internationally. For the reasons discussed, some mainstream BRS have not been included: LEED because it is rooted in the building culture of the USA and because LCA weighs only 3% of the total credits (3 out of a maximum of 110) [40], as well as GreenStar and CASBEE, since they are used in the southeast Pacific and are relatively minor [41]. Another study [42] selected the 36 most representative BRS and compared them using four items: phase of life cycle applied, sustainability aspects assessed, categories considered, and the type and status of the building assessed. The results showed that many BRS do not assess all aspects of sustainable building. Many assess energy and the quality of the interior environment, but few assess relevant social and economic aspects. Our five chosen BRS do qualify in all these aspects. The discussion below will show to what extent their results are aggregable.  
The name building \"rating\" system has been favoured over other frequent terms, such as \"assessment\" or \"evaluation\", because the chosen BRS make use of the more academic \"assessment\" for rather commercial \"rating\" purposes. A prefixed adjective such as \"green\", \"environmental\", or \"sustainable\" has been avoided, as the selected BRS include process, climate, health, and cultural aspects on top of the environmental, economic, and social aspects common to sustainability. Although Green Building Rating System (GBRS) is frequently used in research and market activity, and has become a Taxonomy concept aimed at clarifying the role of BRS in relation to sustainability and climate change mitigation (Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 [43], the term is still ambiguous and prone to \"greenwashing\". Simply, BRS stresses the ongoing evolution of the related keywords. An extensive bibliometric analysis of 4203 records of \"Sustainable Building Assessment Methods\" from 1975 to 2017, assesses the importance of keywords in the evolution of the topic [44].