Strategies for green Building label adoption in Brazil: a Validated Interpretative Structural Modeling (VISM) approach

Estratégias para a adoção de certificações de construções verdes no Brasil: uma abordagem com a Modelagem Estrutural Interpretativa Validada

Abstract

Green Building Labels (GBLs) provide a global framework for certifying more sustainable buildings, offering benefits for user health, comfort, and society. However, the number of certified Green Buildings (GBs) in developing countries remains low compared to developed nations. To promote GBL adoption in Brazil, this study developed a strategic model using the Validated Interpretative Structural Modeling (VISM) technique. The model was built using data from a survey conducted with 78 stakeholders from the Brazilian GB industry. The results indicate that (1) government-led strategies play a central role in GB certification, primarily through the regulation and enforcement of environmental policies; (2) certification entities can boost GBL adoption in developing countries by enabling greater implementation of low-cost Green Building Technologies (GBTs); and (3) government and corporate leadership in GBL adoption can allow small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to enter the market. The proposed model contributes to the body of knowledge on sustainable construction, particularly within developing country contexts such as Brazil.

Keywords
Green Building; ISM; PLS-SEM

Resumo

Em todo o mundo certificações de construções verdes proporcionam um modelo para a certificação de construções mais sustentáveis, com benefícios para a saúde e conforto dos usuários e da sociedade. Contudo, o número de construções verdes certificadas permanece baixo comparado ao de países desenvolvidos. Com o objetivo de fomentar a adoção de certificações no Brasil, esta pesquisa desenvolveu um modelo de estratégias utilizando a técnica de Modelagem Estrutural Interpretativa Validada. Para sua construção foram utilizados dados de uma survey realizada com 78 tomadores de decisão da indústria de construção verde brasileira. Os resultados mostraram: (1) estratégias adotadas pelo governo têm um papel central na certificação de construções verdes, principalmente por meio da regularização e fiscalização de políticas ambientais; (2) certificadoras podem fomentar a adoção em países em desenvolvimento expandindo o uso de tecnologias verdes de baixo custo; (3) a liderança do governo e de empresas na certificação de edifícios pode fornecer as parcerias e a informação necessária para que pequenas e médias empresas entrarem no mercado. O modelo proposto contribui para o conjunto de conhecimentos sobre construção sustentável, particularmente em contextos de países em desenvolvimento, como o Brasil.

Palavras-chave
Construções verdes; ISM; PLS-SEM

Introduction

The construction industry plays a vital role in the development of countries. In Brazil, it contributes approximately 10% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and has been growing at a rate higher than the national average since 2021 (ABRAINC, 2023; CBIC, 2024). This growth is driven by investments from public banks, which allocated 44.9% of their resources – equivalent to USD 161.08 billion in 2022 – to the housing sector (Dieese, 2023). The sector's expansion is a response to Brazil’s escalating housing deficit, which reached 6.2 million housing units in 2022, marking a 4.2% increase since 2019 (FJP, 2024). However, despite its importance and increasing investment (Dieese, 2023), the construction industry and housing sector still account for 35% of Brazil’s energy consumption, including residential and cement/steel industry consumption (EPE; MME, 2023). They also contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions (Maués; Beltrão; Silva, 2021; Ribeiro et al., 2023), rely on materials and construction methods with high environmental impacts (de Lara; Penteado, 2024), and generate 58% of the country’s solid waste (ABREMA, 2024) of which only 16.1% is recycled (ABRECON, 2022). The remaining waste is often dumped in inadequate landfills (Thives; Ghisi; Thives Júnior, 2022), negatively impacting the health, well-being, and income of surrounding communities (Souza et al., 2022) and worsening the effects of the climate crisis in these areas. This mismanagement contributes to landslides on waste-laden slopes and urban flooding by clogging drainage systems.

These figures highlight the urgency of investing in Brazil’s more sustainable construction industry and housing sector. To address this challenge, GBLs provide a structured framework for developing more sustainable buildings (Santana et al., 2023a) with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Tsai; Tsai, 2022) while improving public health and well-being (MacNaughton et al., 2018). Additionally, GBLs can reduce building energy consumption (Magalhães et al., 2024), enhance user satisfaction regarding thermal and lighting comfort (Kern et al., 2016) and contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Alawneh et al., 2019; Tsai; Tsai, 2022).

Nevertheless, Brazil currently has only 2,629 certified GBs (Caixa, 2025; INMETRO, 2025; USGBC, 2025; ^{AQUA-HQETM, 2025}) and the national GBL market remains niche, predominantly restricted to high-end commercial buildings in major urban centers (Santana et al., 2023a). As shown in Figure 1, the adoption of green buildings in Brazil began in the 2000s, initially driven by the international GBLs such as LEED and AQUA. This movement peaked in 2013 with 182 certifications but experienced a decline in interest in the following years, reaching its lowest point in 2017 with only 62 certifications. A subsequent recovery in adoption was observed, primarily driven by the growing implementation of national GBLs like Casa Azul and Procel, which are more tailored to the Brazilian context. Despite this recovery, Figure 1 suggests that the adoption of GBLs in Brazil remains limited to the levels observed in the early 2010s, still confined to a niche market of high-end developments. This trend indicates a significant gap between current practices and the broader adoption required to effectively contribute to the SDGs.

Figure 1
GBL adoption in Brazil

To better understand this scenario, Santana et al. (2023a) investigated the barriers hindering GBL market expansion in Brazil and identified key challenges related to environmental protection mechanisms, costs, and return on investment. They also proposed a hierarchical model illustrating how these barriers influence GBL adoption. Studies like these are essential for fostering sustainable construction practices in developing countries. However, barriers represent only one aspect of the new technologies adoption, and further research on additional influencing factors is necessary to develop new strategies (Darko et al., 2018) that can support GBL adoption.

In an effort to promote the adoption of GBLs, several studies have investigated key strategies to support their implementation. In China, Teng et al. (2019) proposed a strategic model based on structural equation modeling to foster GBL adoption. In Taiwan and Mozambique, Ping Ho et al. (2024) explored strategies influencing users’ intentions to adopt GBLs, aiming to strengthen uptake in these countries. Another study developed a model to optimize long-term subsidy strategies for promoting GBL adoption, incorporating perspectives from various stakeholders such as government entities, developers, and homebuyers (Jiang et al., 2022). In Ghana, Darko and Chan (2018b) proposed a strategic framework to encourage the adoption of Green Building Technologies (GBTs), including GBLs. Further addressing GBT adoption, a broader study by Darko et al. (2018) identified key barriers, drivers, and strategies to promote their uptake in developing countries. Despite these contributions, there remains a significant gap in the literature regarding the main strategies for GBL adoption tailored to the Brazilian context.

In this context, to promote a more sustainable built environment in Brazil, this study aims to develop a strategic model to foster GBL adoption in the country.

Green Building Labels (GBLs)

In this study, GBLs are understood as any certification applied to buildings, either market-driven or government-initiated, designed to assess one or more dimensions of sustainability, including environmental, economic, and social aspects. These labels can be either international or local (national), depending on their acceptance – international labels certify buildings across multiple countries, whereas national labels apply only within a specific country or culturally similar region—and the presence of certifying bodies in each country (Devine; Mccollum, 2019). Notable examples of international certifications include LEED (USGBC, 2025), BREEAM (2025), and Green Star (GBCA, 2025), while national certifications include Selo Casa Azul Caixa (Caixa, 2025), AQUA (^{AQUA-HQETM, 2025}), and Procel Edifica (INMETRO, 2025) in Brazil and Basix (NSW, 2025) in Australia.

Globally, GBLs have contributed to the certification of over 1,363,559 projects to date (BREEAM, 2025; GBCA, 2025; Samaratunga et al., 2017; USGBC, 2025), fostering awareness of sustainable development within the construction industry (Ping Ho et al., 2024). In developed countries, where environmental laws and regulations are highly stringent, GBLs serve as a mechanism to facilitate the implementation of more sustainable buildings and enable compliance with higher sustainability standards (Berry; Moore; Ambrose, 2019). Conversely, in developing countries, where construction laws and regulations are less strict, these labels were initially introduced by multinational corporations (USGBC, 2025) and publicly traded companies (Devine; McCollum, 2019), becoming not only a trend but also a globally recognized framework (particularly in the case of international labels) that integrates diverse sustainable practices into local construction industries (Potbhare; Syal; Korkmaz, 2009).

While the precise factors driving GBL adoption in both developed and developing countries remain inconclusive, strong evidence suggests that companies implement GBLs primarily to gain competitive advantages (Costa et al., 2018) rather than for direct financial benefits to developers (Ade; Rehm, 2019; Zhang; Wu; Liu, 2018), users (Costa et al., 2018; Kern et al., 2016) or out of genuine environmental concern (Cohen; Pearlmutter; Schwartz, 2019).

Supporting this perspective, Devine and McCollum (2019) identified a strong correlation between GBL adoption and the foreign investment level in developing countries. Similarly, Cole and Valdebenito (2013) highlighted the pivotal role of multinational corporations and international developers in expanding GBL acceptance. Indeed, investing in GBLs is more feasible for large enterprises (Qi et al., 2010; Qian et al., 2015), even though they often seek only the lowest levels of certification required (Hsieh; Noonan, 2017), a trend observed in Brazil as well (Obata et al., 2019).

Although adopting GBLs or investing in environmental sustainability is often portrayed as the “right thing to do” (Lambrechts et al., 2019), consensus on this matter remains elusive. Studies such as Fontana’s (2019) shed light on the real motivations behind certification decisions. His research, which interviewed thirty industry executives in Bangladesh, revealed that certification is primarily driven by a fear of competitive disadvantage. According to the respondents, having a LEED-certified facility conveys high social status, whereas lacking such certification is perceived as a reputational setback, leading to feelings of inferiority and exclusion.

While Fontana’s (2019) findings may not fully explain the broader motivations for certification, they align with existing literature suggesting that companies pursue GBLs primarily to gain competitive advantages (Costa et al., 2018; Doan et al., 2019; Morris et al., 2018). At the very least, these findings indicate the maturation of GBL markets in certain countries, where local firms, facing competition from large corporations, pursue certification as a means of maintaining competitive parity (Mollaoglu et al., 2016).

Strategies to promote GBLs

This study adopts the concept that strategies are a set of actions designed to achieve a specific outcome or objective (Darko; Chan, 2018b). These actions aim to mitigate barriers to GBL adoption and tend to have a broader impact, as they address multiple factors, often unidentified, to achieve a given goal (Ping Ho et al., 2024). Furthermore, strategies help define the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in promoting sustainable practices (Chan; Darko; Ameyaw, 2017; Jiang et al., 2022).

Table 1 presents the strategies identified through the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) conducted in this research.

Table 1
Indicators and constructs developed for the strategies model

Construct	Strategy	Description	Supported literature
C1 - Public policies supporting GBL	S1	Mandatory policies and regulations for green building construction	Mollaoglu et al. (2016), Shen et al. (2018) and Yu (2019)
	S2	Enhance local support for sustainable initiatives by fostering policies, certificating public buildings, or providing access to certification consultants	Morris et al. (2018), Sabbagh, Mansour and Banawi (2019)
	S3	Make GBL mandatory	Potbhare, Syal and Korkmaz (2009) and Sabbagh, Mansour and Banawi (2019)
	S4	Strengthen existing environmental policies (e.g., stricter inspections during the operational phase with transparent disclosure of results)	Liu et al. (2018) and Qian and Chan (2010)
C2 - Investments, subsidies, and public-private partnerships	S5	Offer low-cost loans, tax exemptions, and subsidies from government and financial institutions, particularly for small and medium-sized construction companies	Qian and Chan (2010), Shen et al. (2018) and Yu . (2019)
	S6	Invest in innovation through partnerships with research institutions and universities or by creating research centers for developing green technologies and materials.	Mollaoglu et al. (2016) and Shen . (2018)
	S7	Government, large enterprises, or multinational companies certify their constructions and publicize the performance of these buildings	Mollaoglu et al. (2016), Shen et al. (2018) and Yu . (2019)
C3 - Researching and promoting the benefits of green construction	S8	Increase public environmental awareness through activities such as workshops, seminars, and conferences	Abidin (2010), Liu et al. (2018), Potbhare, Syal and Korkmaz (2009) and Sabbagh, Mansour and Banawi (2019)
	S9	Expand media campaigns (e.g., print media, radio, television, and the internet) to provide information on projects, costs, and benefits of green certifications	Morris et al. (2018), Qian and Chan (2010) and Sabbagh, Mansour and Banawi (2019)
C4 - Simplicity and flexibility of the certification process	S10	Improve the certification process by creating user-friendly manuals, technical systems, templates, and tools.	Abidin (2010), Adekanye, Davis and Azevedo (2020), Morris et al. (2018) and Yu . (2019)
	S11	Increase the flexibility of certification requirements to accommodate diverse locations and climates	Adekanye, Davis and Azevedo (2020) and Morris et al. (2018)
C5 - Education and training for construction professionals on GB practices	S12	Prepare the industry through educational and training programs for developers, contractors, AEC professionals, and policymakers	Mollaoglu et al. (2016), Morris . (2018) and Sabbagh, Mansour and Banawi (2019)
	S13	Train sales teams to effectively communicate the sustainable advantages of the projects they represent	Morris et al. (2018)

Among these strategies, the most frequently cited in the literature is offering low-cost loans, tax exemptions, and subsidies from government and financial institutions, particularly for small and medium-sized construction companies. According to Ding (2014), financial incentives are a necessary strategy to keep green building construction accessible to the population. Cohen, Pearlmutter and Schwartz (2019) support this argument, adding that providing subsidies and cheaper credit is the most effective strategy to promote GBL adoption, especially for lower-income populations, for whom the initial additional cost is even more restrictive.

Qian and Chan (2010), argue that this strategy plays an even more crucial role in developing countries, as it not only attracts buyers but also provides financial support for innovation and the maturation of the industry that sustains the continuous development of GBL. Another important finding highlighted by Cease et al. (2019) is that this strategy is particularly relevant in the early stages of GBL adoption but loses prominence as GB implementation progresses. In fact, the most appropriate timing for each strategy may vary depending on the evolution of sustainable practices (Santana et al., 2023a). Nevertheless, financial incentives for GB adoption are expected to remain necessary for some time, at least until the general lack of awareness regarding the benefits of GBL is addressed (Zhang et al., 2018). Interestingly, increasing knowledge and awareness of GBL is the second most frequently cited strategy in the literature.

The second most cited strategy is increasing public environmental awareness through activities such as workshops, seminars, and conferences. Zhang et al. (2018) suggest that education in schools, corporate training, and advertising are viable actions to implement this strategy. These initiatives become even more critical in developing countries, where knowledge, awareness, and training regarding GBL remain very low (Berawi et al., 2019; Pham; Lee; Ahn, 2019; Sundayi; Tramontin; Loggia, 2016).

Another widely cited strategy is the implementation of mandatory policies and regulations for green building construction. It is undeniable that the government plays a fundamental role in the dissemination of GBL (Berawi et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). Mandatory policies and regulations for green building construction have already proven to be a highly effective strategy for fostering its adoption (Guo; Pachauri, 2017; Samaratunga et al., 2017). However, merely establishing these regulations is not sufficient – the government must also ensure their strict enforcement. Otherwise, developers may not perceive these regulations as significant (SmartMarket, 2018), or they may find ways to bypass them (Cohen; Pearlmutter; Schwartz, 2019), while buyers might distrust the effectiveness of certification entities (Foong et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018).

Nevertheless, according to Martek et al. (2019), in the absence of construction market awareness, regulations are the only language that developers understand. In this context, making GBLs mandatory appears to be the eleventh most cited by the literature. Making GBLs mandatory can be an effective strategy when the market lacks information and demand for GB (Ping Ho et al., 2024), even more important than advertising or proactive local authority actions (Potbhare; Syal; Korkmaz, 2009). In fact, this strategy seems so promising that some countries have adopted it and achieved positive results. In Australia, the Basix GBL was made mandatory in part of the country (NSW, 2025) and proved to be a means of spreading large-scale adoption of GB (Samaratunga et al., 2017). In China, the government launched the Green Lights Program as a mandatory GBL. As a result, there was not only widespread adoption of GB but raised the GBL market maturity as well (Guo; Pachauri, 2017).

Still, in Israel, the SL 5281 standard was made mandatory in certain states; however, this strategy did not result in a wider spread of green buildings and faded into neglect due to corruption and lack of attention from local authorities (Cohen; Pearlmutter; Schwartz, 2019). In conclusion, the benefits and reach of this strategy seem promising and have not been sufficiently explored. Stil, they largely depend on the strength and commitment of local public authorities, which may make its adoption more difficult in countries like Brazil, where corruption scandals and environmental neglect are unfortunately frequent in the media (Folha de São Paulo, 2025; G1, 2025; Transparência Internacional Brasil, 2020).

Method

In order to develop the strategy model for the GBLs use in Brazil, the VISM technique was carried out in this research. VISM was adopted due to its ability to address complex and poorly understood problems through a graphical structure based on Interpretative Structural Modeling (ISM) (Liang; Wang; Zhao, 2022; Mondal; Singh; Gupta, 2023), combined with the statistical reliability derived from incorporating procedures from Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (Nguyen-Phuoc et al., 2021; Santana; Maués, 2022). Furthermore, VISM has already proven to be an appropriate modeling technique in similar works that involve data collected through survey research and are characterized by small sample sizes and non-normal data distribution (Santana et al., 2023a, 2023b), as is the case in this study.

The procedure for creating the strategy model using the VISM technique is shown in Figure 2. The model development process was carried out in five stages: in the first, the research indicators were identified and measured; in the second, the base constructs of the model were defined; in the third, the relationships between the constructs were identified; in the fourth, the relationships between the constructs were validated; and in the fifth and final stage, the conceptual model was created.

Figure 2
Flowchart of the elaboration of the strategies model using the VISM technique

Identification and measurement of indicators

The identification of indicators (strategies) was carried out through a SRL. A technique of SRL was adopted for literature search due its ability to establishes a clear and replicable method for data collection across other studies, which results in a broad set of findings, ideally containing all studies relevant to the researched topic (Dresch; Lacerda; Antunes Junior, 2015).

To ensure the rigor and quality of the research, the SRL followed the procedures outlined by Almeida and Picchi (2018). Articles published in peer-reviewed journals were sought in the main engineering databases: "ScienceDirect", "Web of Science", "Scielo", "Engineering Village" and "Scopus". The following search terms were used: “(green OR sustainab) AND (rating OR assessment OR label) AND strateg.”

However, despite the rigor in the search process, some important articles may have been overlooked due to unavailability in the research database or errors in the search terms used. To obtain as many indicators as possible, additional studies were identified through cross-references obtained by reading the selected articles (Watson et al., 2016). As a result, 19 relevant papers were identified on the topic, bringing the total to 33 works when including the papers identified through cross-references.

Once the indicators, i.e., the most recognized strategies for the adoption of GBLs according to the scientific literature, were identified, their measurement was conducted. The measurement of strategies was done through the first survey of the research. Based on the procedures of Dörnyei and Taguchi (2010), the strategies were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "not important", "less important", "neutral", "important" to "very important". The first survey was conducted online with professionals experienced in GBLs in Brazil, including certification institutions, public entities, project development and design, consulting, and academic research. In total, 368 invitations were sent via the business social network "LinkedIn", 89 emails were sent to professors and researchers, 112 emails were sent to infrastructure and environmental departments, 49 emails were sent to construction industry unions, 31 direct contacts were made through messages or phone calls to acquaintances, and emails were sent to certification institutions for GBLs in Brazil, including LEED, AQUA, and Selo Casa Azul.

Definition of constructs

Using the data obtained from the measurement of strategies, the research constructs were defined. Constructs are the basic units of the VISM model and serve to simplify complex models by reducing them to a smaller number of comprehensive and statistically coherent elements.

To create the constructs, the rigorous three-step procedure developed by Santana and Maués (2022) was adopted due to its simplicity and the coherence of the resulting constructs. According to this procedure: first, principal component factor analysis was performed to group the indicators into constructs; second, to ensure the understanding of the constructs, a content analysis was conducted; and third, to ensure the statistical coherence of the constructs, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. However, if a construct did not meet the requirements of steps two and three, these steps were repeated as many times as necessary to guarantee the understanding and statistical coherence of the constructs (Santana; Maués, 2022).

Identification of possible relationships between constructs

Once the constructs were defined, the next step was to identify their possible relationships. By definition, these relationships are possible and not guaranteed, and they will only be validated if confirmed in step 2.4. To identify these possible relationships, a second survey was conducted. This second survey was performed online and sent to all respondents from the first survey.

As described in Santana et al. (2023a) the second survey aimed to gather data to construct the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM). For this, respondents were asked to assign the following symbols: "V" for relationships of influence in the direction of axes i-j; "A" for relationships of influence in the direction of axes j-i; "X" for relationships of influence in both directions; and "0" for the absence of relationships between the constructs.

Based on the average responses from the second survey, the average accessibility matrix was constructed. For this, the value 1 was assigned to each possible relationship in the SSIM according to its direction along the i-j or j-i axes. For example, a relationship i-j to which "V" was assigned results in a value of 1 in the i-j direction and a value of 0 in the j-i direction. Conversely, a relationship i-j to which "A" was assigned results in a value of 0 in the i-j direction and a value of 1 in the j-i direction. Finally, to extract the possible relationships from the average accessibility matrix, the adapted mode rule was used. According to the adapted mode rule, relationships with values above 0.5 in the average accessibility matrix can be considered (Santana et al., 2023a).

Validation of relationships between constructs

In this step, the relationships between constructs were validated. The goal of validation is to test which of the possible relationships between constructs show statistical significance and can be used in the model. This step is one of the pillars of the VISM technique and ensures that, after this phase, only relationships with statistical significance will be considered.

According to Santana et al. (2023a), in this step, linear models will be constructed containing the potential relationships between constructs and tested for statistical significance using bootstrapping procedures, following five conditions for creating the linear models:

1. the linear variations developed should show as many relations between constructs as possible;

2. possible unsupported relations should be deleted;

3. a good test of a possible relation is one, in which, in the same linear variation, all existing relations between the constructs that precede it are tested;

4. if possible, as many linear variations should be developed as the possible relations to be tested allow; otherwise, and there is no clear limit on the maximum number of linear variations to be tested, a sufficient number of linear variations should be tested (as in rule 5 shown below); and

5. a sufficient number of linear variations developed is one in which each relation is tested several times equal to the number of constructs. For example, if a model has ten constructs, each possible relation should be tested at least ten times.

Creation of the model

Once the valid relationships between constructs were obtained, the final accessibility matrix was constructed. The final accessibility matrix was built by assigning the value "1" for each valid relationship between constructs and for transitive relations. According to the transitivity rule, in a relation among parameters A, B, and C, if A has a direct relation with B and B has a direct relation with C, then A has a transitive relation with C (Chander; Jain; Shankar, 2013; Mondal; Singh; Gupta, 2023).

Next, based on the final accessibility matrix, the values of driving power and dependence of the constructs were calculated. The driving power and dependence values are parameters that indicate the strength of each construct, calculated by summing the values in each row and column, respectively. Both values are then used to rank the constructs following the procedures of the Cross-Multiplying Impact Matrix Applied to Classification (MICMAC).

According to the MICMAC procedure, the driving power and dependence values are adopted as the x and y coordinates, respectively, of a two-dimensional classification diagram consisting of four quadrants or levels, limited by the averages of the values on each axis (Santana et al., 2023b). The four quadrants resulting from the two-dimensional classification diagram are (Mondal; Singh; Gupta, 2023):

1. Quadrant I: autonomous constructs: these are weak to both driving power and dependence. Consequently, constructs in this level are usually poorly connected with the model;

1. Quadrant II: dependent constructs: these are weak in driving power but strong in dependence and appear lower in the hierarchical structure;

2. Quadrant III: linkage constructs: these are strong in driving power and dependence constructs, being sensitive and interfering in the system as a whole if they suffer any kind of modification; and

3. Quadrant IV: driving constructs: the strong constructs in driving power but weak in dependence. They have a great capacity to in- fluence other constructs significantly and are, therefore, priorities in decision-making about the system.

Finalizing the model of strategies, the constructs underwent a clustering process using one of the procedures of the ISM technique, which involves identifying the reachability, antecedent, and intersection sets. This procedure is well-known in the literature and was developed based on Mondal et al. (2023). In this study, the procedure was used to emphasize constructs in the same quadrant that cannot be clearly ranked due to cross-relations or a lack of direct relation.

Results

Strategies for the adoption of GBL in Brazil

Based on the RSL, 13 indicators, i.e., strategies for the adoption of GBL in Brazil, were identified. Table 1 presents the obtained indicators and the created constructs.

After identifying the indicators for the model, the next step was to measure them through the first survey. As a result of the first survey, 78 responses were collected. The number of responses was considered satisfactory, taking into account the statistical procedures adopted (Hair et al., 2014) and the equivalence with the number of responses obtained in similar papers (Darko et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2018; Santana et al., 2023b; Yang; Yang, 2015).

Regarding the demographic data presented in Figure 3, the results suggest patterns consistent with the quality of the research. Among the respondents, 68% have more than 11 years of experience in construction, and 59% have more than 5 years of experience with GBL. Regarding their functions, 25 are consultants, 23 are builders, 20 are academics, 6 are GBL representatives, and 4 represent unions or public agencies. Furthermore, twelve of the respondents hold managerial positions in their companies.

Figure 3
Demographic data of respondents

Definition of the constructs

Five constructs were created for the strategy model to promote the adoption of GBL in Brazil. The constructs and their indicators are presented in Table 1. Following the rigorous procedure of Santana and Maués (2022) several cycles were necessary for the definition of the constructs, and the results of the confirmatory factor analysis from the last cycle are presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Results of confirmatory factor analysis of the strategy constructs

Constructs	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5
C1	0.757	–	–	–	–
C2	0.667	0.766	–	–	–
C3	0.375	0.582	0.883	–	–
C4	0.376	0.458	0.142	0.908	–
C5	0.51	0.655	0.527	0.371	0.792
Composite Reliability	0.842	0.807	0.877	0.903	0.768
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	0.573	0.587	0.78	0.824	0.628

• Note: *bold values on the diagonal are the square root of the AVE.

With the results from the confirmatory factor analysis, we can assess whether the arrangement of indicators into constructs is consistent with the factorial model (Henseler; Hubona; Ray, 2016). Upon examining Table 2, it is evident that the internal consistency is satisfactory, with composite reliability values exceeding 0.708 (Hair et al., 2014). Similarly, the AVE greater than 0.5 confirms the model’s convergent validity and the square root values of the AVE (in bold on the diagonal) greater than the correlations of the constructs with the others demonstrate the discriminant validity of the constructs.

Results of identifying possible relationships between constructs

Following the procedures outlined in the VISM technique, the second survey was conducted. As a result, six responses were obtained, which is comparable to the number of responses typically received in similar studies (Peng et al., 2022; Santana et al., 2023a). Table 3 presents the SSIM results from the six respondents and the summed averages of the responses regarding the directional relationships between constructs from axis i-j and from j-i.

Table 3
Summary of respondents’ SSIMs in the 2^nd survey

Relations (i-j)	Answers/Respondent						Average of answers per axis
	1	2	3	4	5	6	(i-j)	(j-i)
C1-C2	V	X	V	X	X	V	1	0.5
C1-C3	V	X	X	A	X	V	0.8	0.7
C1-C4	V	X	A	A	V	V	0.7	0.5
C1-C5	V	X	V	V	V	V	1	0.2
C2-C3	A	A	X	A	V	V	0.5	0.7
C2-C4	A	V	X	A	V	0	0.5	0.5
C2-C5	X	X	X	V	0	V	0.8	0.5
C3-C4	X	X	V	0	X	A	0.7	0.7
C3-C5	V	A	X	V	V	V	0.8	0.3
C4-C5	A	X	V	0	0	V	0.5	0.3

Based on the average of the responses per axis from the SSIM, the average reachability matrix was constructed, as presented in Table 4. From Table 4, the potential relationships between constructs were defined by applying the adapted mode rule, where relationships with values equal to or greater than 0.5 were considered.

Table 4
Average reachability matrix

i	j
	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5
C1	1	1.00	0.83	0.67	1.00
C2	0.50	1	0.50	0.50	0.83
C3	0.67	0.67	1	0.67	0.83
C4	0.50	0.50	0.67	1	0.50
C5	0.17	0.50	0.33	0.33	1

Results of the validation of relations between constructs

In order to test the significance of the potential relationships between the strategy constructs, linear PLS-SEM models were constructed and tested based on various combinations of these potential relationships. The results of these multiple linear models are presented in Table 5, where a supported relationship is one where the p-value (significance) is below 10% (the values in the table were rounded to the nearest decimal after analyzing the results) (Hair et al., 2014).

Table 5
Results of the significance test of possible relationships between constructs (only valid relationships)

Variation	Indicator	C1- C2	C1- C4	C2- C3	C2- C5	C3- C1	C3- C2	C3- C5	C4- C2	C4- C3	C1- C3	C1- C5	C3- C4	C4- C5
Model 1	t-value	12.0	2.8	5.1	2.2			2.1			0.5	1.2	0.0	1.3
	p-value	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0			0.0			0.6	0.2	1.0	0.2
Model 2	t-value	6.0			4.2	4.0	4.6	1.9	3.0	1.1
	p-value	0.0			0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.3
Model 3	t-value	6.0	3.0		4.3	3.9	4.6	1.9	3.0
	p-value	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0
Model 4	t-value	10.1	3.0	6.3	4.3			1.9	2.2
	p-value	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0			0.1	0.0
Model 5	t-value		3.3	6.3	4.3			1.9	3.7
	p-value		0.0	0.0	0.0			0.1	0.0
Model 6	t-value	10.1		6.6	4.2			1.9	2.4
	p-value	0.0		0.0	0.0			0.1	0.0
Modelo 7	t-value			6.3	4.4	4.2		1.9	3.7
	p-value			0.0	0.0	0.0		0.1	0.0

• Note: *values in black are the t (strength)-values of the possible relationships for each linear variation; the values in green are the p-values that were significant at 10% of the sample. The values in red are the p-values that were not significant in 10% of the sample.

As a result of the significance tests, 8 potential relationships were validated, highlighted in green. Following the five validation conditions of the VISM technique, seven linear models were created. This satisfied condition four for the finalization of the linear model testing, as no further variations of possible relationships between constructs could be formulated.

Results of the creation of the model

After defining the valid relationships between constructs, the final Accessibility Matrix was constructed, as presented in Table 6.

Table 6
Final accessibility matrix (using only validated relations)

i	j					Driving power
	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5
C1	1	1	1a	1	1a	5
C2	1a	1	1	0	1	4
C3	1	1	1	1a	1	5
C4	0	1	1a	1	1a	4
C5	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dependence	3	4	4	3	5

• Nota:
• ^a
  transitive links.

Next, the constructs were plotted on the two-dimensional diagram of MICMAC. The abscissa axis represents dependence, while the ordinate axis represents driving power. The quadrant boundaries, indicated by the orange dividing lines, are defined by the averages of the results along each axis. The two-dimensional strategy diagram is presented in Figure 4. As a result, Constructs 1 and 4 were classified in Quadrant IV, as driving constructs, Constructs 2 and 3 were plotted in Quadrant III, as linkage constructs, and Construct 5 was plotted in Quadrant II, as dependent constructs.

Figure 4
Results of the classification of the constructors plotted in quadrants of the two-dimensional diagram

Finally, the conceptual model of strategies to GBL adoption in Brazil was elaborated, as following in Figure 5.

Figure 5
VISM Strategy model for GBL adoption in Brazil

Discussion

Driving constructs

As the primary model construct, Public Policies Supporting GBL is composed of government-backed strategies, including the publication, enhanced support, and enforcement of mandatory green building policies and regulations, along with Strategy S3, "Make GBL Mandatory". This result supports the view that the government plays a leadership role in the dissemination of GBL (Berawi et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2018; Santana at al., 2023a). Supporting this argument, mandatory green building policies and regulations have already proven to be a transformative strategy for the built environment’s performance (Aydin; Brounen; Kok, 2020; Guo; Pachauri, 2017). According to Martek et al. (2019), in the absence of market awareness, these regulations are the only language that developers understand. Notably, there is evidence of low awareness among Brazilian users regarding GBL. According to Santana et al. (2023a) the corporate and public awareness are some of the main barriers to be addressed for GBL adoption in Brazil.

Thus, this result corroborates the literature, reaffirming the government's leadership role in adopting GBL. In a scenario of low corporate and public awareness, Martek et al. (2019) statement may prove true. From this perspective, without mandatory imposition, it may be challenging to envision a future of widespread GB adoption throughout Brazil.

To further discuss the state's leadership role in adopting GBL, we can cite examples where mandatory certification has yielded positive outcomes. For instance, the GBL Basix in Australia, after becoming mandatory in several states, has seen widespread adoption and has certified over 140,000 buildings (Samaratunga et al., 2017). In China, the government’s Green Lights program established mandatory energy efficiency GBL, which led to wide dissemination of GB, a reduction in energy consumption and prices, technological development, strengthened industries for green technologies, and the creation of new international partnerships and markets (Guo; Pachauri, 2017).

However, not all experiences have been positive. In Israel, the SL 5281 standard was made mandatory in some states; however, this strategy did not lead to greater green building dissemination and instead was forgotten due to corruption and lack of attention from local authorities (Cohen; Pearlmutter; Schwartz, 2019). These experiences highlight that, while promising, government institutional support for GBL should be implemented rigorously. It is necessary to strengthen oversight by the institutions responsible for enforcing environmental protection policies. With a more rigorous environmental protection policy, the benefits for green building construction are expected to increase, as they also help meet environmental legislation, thus making the Brazilian construction market more sustainable in alignment with the SDGs.

The second construct driving the strategy model is the simplicity and flexibility of the certification process. This construct includes strategies such as "Improvement of the certification method" and "Increase flexibility of requirements, facilitating certification in various locations and climates". According to Yu et al. (2019), in developing countries where GB implementation is still in its early stages, improving the certification method is a key strategy for expanding GBL adoption. Mlecnik, Visscher and Hal (2010) state that the complexity and difficulty in expanding GBL adoption are direct results of overly demanding requirements. In support of this, Adekanye, Davis and Azevedo (2020) observed a correlation between LEED updates and its adoption, demonstrating that the evolution of its certification process partly explains the success of its implementation.

However, it is important to highlight that simplifying the certification process does not mean lowering sustainability standards but rather aiming for better alignment of GBLs with regional characteristics and local developers' needs, as well as increasing accessibility to the certification process. For example, according to Flowers, Matisoff and Noonan (2019) providing greater flexibility could involve offering more options for requirements, enabling broader GBL adoption, even for lower-cost projects. This flexibility would allow developers to choose requirements that provide environmental, social, and economic benefits better aligned with clients' needs in different regions and economic classes.

For developing countries like Brazil, this strategy emphasizes the importance of simplifying the certification process for lower-cost GBLs adapted to these regions’ characteristics. This measure is even more crucial for countries with continental dimensions and significant climate and cultural diversity, where certain regions face greater certification difficulties. In the case of Brazil's northern region, where this study was developed, developers are often forced to hire labor, consultancy, and green technologies from other states. They must also meet requirements set for regions with different climates, resulting in higher costs that may restrict green building certification (Magalhães et al., 2024).

Corroborating the importance of greater flexibility in certification criteria, the Brazilian GBL Casa Azul, designed for residential buildings, serves as a noteworthy example. A decade after its initial release, the label underwent a significant update in 2019, launching the Casa Azul Plus certification. This revision reduced the number of mandatory criteria from 19 to 15 while introducing greater flexibility for higher certification levels. The framework expanded from three to seven certification levels, including a new identifier (#mais) that highlights the most scored categories among six thematic identifiers.

One of these identifiers, called “Innovation”, rewards the adoption of cutting-edge technologies linked to the sustainability of the built environment, such as building information modeling, carbon emission reductions, automation systems, connectivity, and even open-ended innovative proposals submitted by construction companies.

As a result of these enhancements, the number of certified projects grew significantly—from just 17 buildings certified by 2019 to an impressive 326 certifications in 2024, mostly at the highest levels of the Casa Azul Plus (CAIXA, 2024), making it the GBL with the highest number of certifications in Brazil in both 2021 and 2024, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Linkage constructs

At the second level of the model hierarchy, the linking elements include two constructs that form a group, indicating that both occupy the same hierarchical level. One of these constructs refers to investments, subsidies, and public-private partnerships. This construct comprises the following strategies: "low-cost loans, tax exemptions, and subsidies", "investing in innovation", and "government, large corporations, and multinational companies certifying their buildings and disclosing the performance of these structures". The objective of this construct is to promote the support of large public and private institutions for small and medium-sized construction companies.

According to Qi et al. (2010) encouraging small and medium-sized construction enterprises to adopt GB practices is a critical strategy for achieving widespread implementation. To facilitate this process, financial incentives, knowledge transfer, and professional experience with certification serve as key enabling factors. This necessity arises because SMEs generally have fewer resources and tend to certify their projects less frequently than large corporations (Bayraktar; Owens; Zhu, 2011). These findings align with the study by Wong and Abe (2014), who stated that, given the predominance of small-scale firms and projects in Japan's construction sector, financial assistance and incentives (targeted at clients, designers, and contractors) are essential to mitigate the additional costs and extended timelines associated with green buildings.

In this context, adopting strategies that promote GBL adoption among SMEs is particularly relevant to the Brazilian construction industry, where over 95% of firms are small businesses (SEBRAE, 2021). Strengthening GBL adoption within SMEs could serve as the foundation for a large-scale transition toward more accessible GB for middle- and low- income populations. The Mexican Funding Program for Housing Solutions (FPHS) exemplifies how public subsidies for low-income housing that integrate GBTs can effectively enhance the sustainability of the built environment, even in developing countries and affordable housing projects (Saldaña-Márquez et al., 2018).

Furthermore, given that the majority of certified GB in Brazil are still commercial properties subsidizing SMEs for green residential construction could be particularly important in fostering the expansion of sustainable housing development. The point is that residential buildings remain a major global energy consumer (Nejat et al., 2015; Nematchoua et al., 2019), therefore, advancing the sustainability of residential construction, especially in low-income housing within developing countries, is a key step toward achieving sustainable development.

The second construct identified as a linking element in the model is researching and promoting the benefits of green construction. This construct includes the strategies of "enhancing media coverage" and "raising public environmental awareness through educational activities (e.g., workshops, seminars, and conferences)". According to Zhang et al. (2018) expanding consumer awareness and knowledge is the second most effective strategy for promoting GB adoption. This is because most users lack awareness of the advantages of GB, leading them to prioritize lower-cost, conventional construction options. In this regard, information dissemination and public awareness campaigns represent key strategies for stimulating market demand for GBL (Zhang, Li; Wu; Liu, 2018; Zhang, Lin et al., 2018).

Dependent constructs

At the level of dependent elements, the construct "education and training of construction professionals for GBL implementation" is identified. This construct encompasses the strategies of "training sales teams to effectively communicate the sustainable advantages of the projects they represent" and "preparing the construction industry through educational and training programs".

Classified as a dependent element, this construct exhibits low driving power and high dependence, indicating that it holds lower priority compared to other strategic elements. Although frequently cited in the reviewed literature, this construct is commonly associated with countries in the early stages of GBL adoption, such as Singapore (Hwang et al., 2017), India (Potbhare; Syal; Korkmaz, 2009), South Africa (Sundayi; Tramontin; Loggia, 2016), Arab countries (Sabbagh; Mansour; Banawi, 2019), Vietnam (Pham; Lee; Ahn, 2019) and Thailand (Shen et al., 2018).

Therefore, this construct appears to be strongly correlated with the diffusion stages of GBL, with its relevance expected to decline as GB certification progresses in Brazil. This trend justifies its classification as a dependent element within the model.

Conclusions

This study developed a strategic model to promote the adoption of green buildings in Brazil. The VISM technique was employed, demonstrating its effectiveness as a tool for creating conceptual models in exploratory research, particularly when dealing with survey-based data characterized by small sample sizes and non-normal distributions.

The VISM model results enabled the hierarchical definition of strategies, suggesting that their sequential adoption could significantly enhance the uptake of GBL in Brazil. According to the model, mandatory regulations and strong governmental enforcement are pivotal in driving GBL adoption. Subsequently, simplifying and localizing certification processes are identified as essential strategies, especially in diverse regions like northern Brazil, where current certification requirements impose high costs and limit accessibility. In this context, it would be important for business associations and industry organizations to advocate for government measures that grant commercial advantages to companies obtaining green certifications. For instance, expedited environmental licensing processes could be offered as an incentive, considering that these companies already implement sustainable practices in their developments.

In the second tier of importance, strategies such as public awareness campaigns, enhanced consumer education, and particularly fostering investments, interest rate reduction, subsidies, and public-private partnerships emerge as critical, given the dominance of SMEs in the Brazilian construction sector. One organizational practice that could effectively support the adoption of GBLs by SMEs construction firms would be to promote joint initiatives among these companies – similar to existing collective procurement schemes organized by industry unions, where centralized purchasing helps reduce both operational costs and the price of more sustainable materials. Finally, while training construction professionals remains relevant, its priority decreases as GBL adoption progresses, indicating a natural shift in focus as the industry's green building practices evolve.

This paper contributes to the literature by presenting strategies that can enhance the sustainability of the built environment. Furthermore, the developed model offers valuable insights for other developing countries facing similar challenges in expanding the adoption of GBL.

Despite significant efforts in data collection, this study faced some sampling limitations due to the relatively small number of professionals with experience in GBL in Brazil and the challenges associated with accessing this target group. Nevertheless, the Brazilian experience provides a valuable foundation for future research aimed at deepening the understanding of GBL adoption dynamics in developing countries. Further investigations could explore how national certification schemes, such as Casa Azul, can drive broader market engagement, particularly in the residential sector, and contribute meaningfully to the sustainable development of the built environment.

Declaração de Disponibilidade de Dados

Os dados de pesquisa só estão disponíveis mediante solicitação.

References

• ABIDIN, N. Z. Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International, v. 34, n. 4, p. 421–426, 2010.
• ADE, R.; REHM, M. Buying limes but getting lemons: cost-benefit analysis of residential green buildings: a New Zealand case study. Energy and Buildings, v. 186, n. January, p. 284–296, 2019.
• ADEKANYE, O. G.; DAVIS, A.; AZEVEDO, I. L. Federal policy, local policy, and green building certifications in the U.S. Energy and Buildings, v. 209, p. 109700, 2020.
• ALAWNEH, R. et al. A Novel framework for integrating United Nations Sustainable Development Goals into sustainable non-residential building assessment and management in Jordan. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 49, n. May, p. 101612, 2019.
• ALMEIDA, E. L. G. de; PICCHI, F. A. Relação entre construção enxuta e sustentabilidade. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 18, n. 1, p. 91–109, jan./mar. 2018.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE INCORPORADORAS IMOBILIÁRIAS. PIB da Construção tem alta de 6,9% em 2022 e puxa crescimento da economia São Paulo: Associação Brasileira de Incorporadoras Imobiliárias, 2023. Available: https://www.abrainc.org.br/construcao-civil/2023/03/02/pib-da-construcao-tem-alta-de-69-em-2022-e-puxa-crescimento-da-economia Access: 3 dez. 2024.
  » https://www.abrainc.org.br/construcao-civil/2023/03/02/pib-da-construcao-tem-alta-de-69-em-2022-e-puxa-crescimento-da-economia
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE RESÍDUOS E MEIO AMBIENTE. Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil São Paulo: Associação Brasileira de Resíduos e Meio Ambiente, 2024. Available: https://abrema.org.br/pdf/Panorama_2023_P1.pdf Access: 3 dez. 2024.
  » https://abrema.org.br/pdf/Panorama_2023_P1.pdf
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA PARA RECICLAGEM DE RESÍDUOS DA CONSTRUÇÃO CIVIL. Pesquisa setorial ABRECON 2020: a reciclagem de resíduos de construção e demolição no Brasil. São Paulo: Epusp, 2022. Available: https://www.livrosabertos.abcd.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/book/839 Access: 3 dez. 2024.
  » https://www.livrosabertos.abcd.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/book/839
• AYDIN, E.; BROUNEN, D.; KOK, N. The capitalization of energy efficiency: Evidence from the housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, v. 117, n. February, p. 103243, 2020.
• BAYRAKTAR, M. E.; OWENS, C. R.; ZHU, Y. State-of-practice of leed in the United States: A contractor’s perspective. International Journal of Construction Management, v. 11, n. 3, p. 1–17, 2011.
• BERAWI, M. A. et al Stakeholders’ perspectives on green building rating: a case study in Indonesia. Heliyon, v. 5, n. 3, p. e01328, 2019.
• BERRY, S.; MOORE, T.; AMBROSE, M. Flexibility versus certainty: the experience of mandating a building sustainability index to deliver thermally comfortable homes. Energy Policy, v. 133, n. August, p. 110926, 2019.
• BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD. BREEAM - Projects. Internacional: Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, 2025. Available: https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/index.jsp Access: 8 jan. 2025.
  » https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/index.jsp
• CAIXA ECONÔMICA FEDERAL. [Página do Selo Casa Azul Caixa. Brazil: Caixa Econômica Federal]. Available: https://www.caixa.gov.br/sustentabilidade/negocios-sustentaveis/selo-casa-azul-caixa/Paginas/default.aspx Access: 9 may 2025.
  » https://www.caixa.gov.br/sustentabilidade/negocios-sustentaveis/selo-casa-azul-caixa/Paginas/default.aspx
• CÂMARA BRASILEIRA DA INDUSTRIA DA CONSTRUÇÃO. Construção cresce 3,5% no 2o trimestre de 2024, superando expectativas econômicas Brasília, 2024. Available: https://cbic.org.br/construcao-cresce-35-no-2o-trimestre-de-2024-superando-expectativas-economicas/ Access: 3 dez. 2024.
  » https://cbic.org.br/construcao-cresce-35-no-2o-trimestre-de-2024-superando-expectativas-economicas/
• CEASE, B. et al Barriers and incentives for sustainable urban development: an analysis of the adoption of LEED-ND projects. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 244, n. May, p. 304–312, 2019.
• CHAN, A. P. C.; DARKO, A.; AMEYAW, E. E. Strategies for promoting green building technologies adoption in the construction industry: an international study. Sustainability, v. 9, n. 969, p. 1–18, 2017.
• CHANDER, M.; JAIN, S. K.; SHANKAR, R. Modeling of information security management parameters in Indian organizations using ISM and MICMAC approach. Journal of Modelling in Management, v. 8, n. 2, p. 171–189, 2013.
• COHEN, C.; PEARLMUTTER, D.; SCHWARTZ, M. Promoting green building in Israel: a game theory-based analysis. Building and Environment, v. 163, n. March, p. 106227, 2019.
• COLE, R. J.; VALDEBENITO, M. J. The importation of building environmental certification systems: International usages of BREEAM and LEED. Building Research and Information, v. 41, n. 6, p. 662–676, 2013.
• COSTA, O. et al Green label signals in an emerging real estate market: a case study of São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 184, n. February, p. 660–670, 2018.
• DARKO, A. et al. Drivers for implementing green building technologies: an international survey of experts. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 145, n. January, p. 386–394, 2017.
• DARKO, A. et al Influences of barriers, drivers, and promotion strategies on green building technologies adoption in developing countries: the Ghanaian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 200, n. August, p. 687–703, 2018.
• DARKO, A.; CHAN, A. P. C. Strategies to promote green building technologies adoption in developing countries: the case of Ghana. Building and Environment, February, p. 74-84, 2018b.
• DE LARA, B. L. E.; PENTEADO, C. S. G. Environmental assessment of construction waste prevention: a case study in a social housing project in Southeast Brazil. Cleaner Waste Systems, v. 8, n. March, p. 100145, 2024.
• DEPARTAMENTO INTERSINDICAL DE ESTATÍSTICA E ESTUDOS SOCIOECONÔMICOS. A importância dos bancos públicos no Brasil São Paulo: Departamento Intersindical de Estatística e Estudos Socioeconômicos, julho, 2023. Available: https://www.dieese.org.br/estudosepesquisas/2023/estPesq107bancosPublicos.html
  » https://www.dieese.org.br/estudosepesquisas/2023/estPesq107bancosPublicos.html
• DEVINE, A.; MCCOLLUM, M. Understanding social system drivers of green building innovation adoption in emerging market countries: The role of foreign direct investment. Cities, v. 92, n. March, p. 303–317, 2019.
• DING, G. K. C. Sustainability assessment of residential development: an Australian experience. International Journal of Construction Management, v. 10, n. 2, p. 19–32, 2014.
• DING, Z. et al Green building evaluation system implementation. Building and Environment, v. 133, n. February, p. 32–40, 2018.
• DOAN, D. T. et al. Examining Green Star certification uptake and its relationship with Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 250, n. September, p. 1–11, 2019.
• DÖRNYEI, Z.; TAGUCHI, T. Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration, and processing. 2^nd ed. Nova York: Routledge, 2010.
• DRESCH, A.; LACERDA, D. P.; ANTUNES JUNIOR, J. A. V. Design science research: método de pesquisa para avanço da ciência e tecnologia. São Paulo: Bookman, 2015.
• EMPRESA DE PESQUISA ENERGÉTICA; MINISTÉRIO DE MINAS E ENERGIA. Atlas of energy efficency Brazil 2023: indicators report. 2023. Available: https://www.epe.gov.br/sites-pt/publicacoes-dados-abertos/publicacoes/PublicacoesArquivos/publicacao-788/Atlas of Energy Efficiency Brazil 2023.pdf
  » https://www.epe.gov.br/sites-pt/publicacoes-dados-abertos/publicacoes/PublicacoesArquivos/publicacao-788/Atlas of Energy Efficiency Brazil 2023.pdf
• FLOWERS, M. E.; MATISOFF, D. C.; NOONAN, D. S. For what it’s worth: evaluating revealed preferences for green certification. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v. 62, n. 5, p. 843–861, 2019.
• FOLHA DE SÃO PAULO. Mensalão, 20 São Paulo: Folha de São Paulo, 2025. Available: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha-topicos/mensalao-20/ Access: 14 may. 2025.
  » https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha-topicos/mensalao-20/
• FONTANA, E. Pioneering environmental innovation in developing countries: the case of executives’ adoption of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 236, p. 117675, 2019.
• FOONG, D. et al. Transitioning to a more sustainable residential built environment in Sydney? Geo: Geography and Environment, v. 4, n. 1, p. 1–11, 2017.
• FUNDAÇÃO JOÃO PINHEIRO. Brasil registra déficit habitacional de 6 milhões de domicílios Minas Gerais: Fundação João Pinheiro, 2024. Available: https://fjp.mg.gov.br/brasil-registra-deficit-habitacional-de-6-milhoes-de-domicilios/ Access: 3 dez. 2024.
  » https://fjp.mg.gov.br/brasil-registra-deficit-habitacional-de-6-milhoes-de-domicilios/
• G1. G1 – search on "corruption". Rio de Janeiro: Rede Globo, 2025. Available: https://g1.globo.com/busca/?q=corrup%C3%A7%C3%A3o Access: 14 may. 2025.
  » https://g1.globo.com/busca/?q=corrup%C3%A7%C3%A3o
• GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL AUSTRALIA. Green Star Project Directory Available: https://www.gbca.org.au/project-directory.asp Access: 8 jan. 2025.
  » https://www.gbca.org.au/project-directory.asp
• GUO, F.; PACHAURI, S. China’s Green Lights Program: a review and assessment. Energy Policy, v. 110, n. August, p. 31–39, 2017.
• HAIR, J. F. et al A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2014.
• HENSELER, J.; HUBONA, G.; RAY, P. A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, v. 116, n. 1, p. 2–20, 2016.
• HSIEH, L.-H. C.; NOONAN, D. Strategic behavior in certifying green buildings: an inquiry of the non-building performance value. Environmental Management, v. 60, n. 2, p. 231–242, 2017.
• HWANG, B. et al. an exploratory analysis of risks in green residential building construction projects: the case of Singapore. Sustainability, v. 9, n. June, p. 9–21, 2017.
• INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE METROLOGIA, QUALIDADE E TECNOLOGIA. Selo PROCEL EDIFICA para Etiquetagem em Edificações Available: https://www.pbeedifica.com.br/edificacoes-etiquetadas Access: 9 may 2025.
  » https://www.pbeedifica.com.br/edificacoes-etiquetadas
• JIANG, H. et al Decision model to optimize long-term subsidy strategy for green building promotion. Sustainable Cities and Society, November, 104126, 2022.
• KERN, A. P. et al Energy and water consumption during the post-occupancy phase and the users’ perception of a commercial building certified by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 133, p. 826–834, 2016.
• LAMBRECHTS, W. et al. The role of individual sustainability competences in eco-design building projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 208, p. 1631–1641, 2019.
• LIANG, Y.; WANG, H.; ZHAO, X. Analysis of factors affecting economic operation of electric vehicle charging station based on DEMATEL-ISM. Computers & Industrial Engineering, v. 163, n. November 2021, p. 107818, 2022.
• LIU, Y. et al Promoting green residential buildings: Residents’ environmental attitude, subjective knowledge, and social trust matter. Energy Policy, v. 112, n. January, p. 152–161, 2018.
• MACNAUGHTON, P. et al. Energy savings, emission reductions, and health co-benefits of the green building movement. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, v. 28, n. 4, p. 307–318, 2018.
• MAGALHÃES, R. S. de et al. Analysis of water and energy consumption in a vertical green residential building in the Amazon. Mix Sustentável, v. 10, n. 1, p. 93–108, 2024.
• MARTEK, I. et al Barriers inhibiting the transition to sustainability within the Australian construction industry: An investigation of technical and social interactions. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 211, n. February, p. 281–292, 2019.
• MAUÉS, L. M. F.; BELTRÃO, N.; SILVA, I. GHG emissions assessment of civil construction waste disposal and transportation process in the eastern Amazon. Sustainability, v. 13, n. 5666, p. 1–26, 2021.
• MLECNIK, E.; VISSCHER, H.; HAL, A. van. Barriers and opportunities for labels for highly energy-efficient houses. Energy Policy, v. 38, n. 8, p. 4592–4603, 2010.
• MOLLAOGLU, S. et al. Diffusion of green building guidelines as innovation in developing countries. Construction Innovation, v. 16, n. 1, p. 11–29, 2016.
• MONDAL, S.; SINGH, S.; GUPTA, H. Assessing enablers of green entrepreneurship in circular economy: An integrated approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 388, n. September 2022, p. 135999, 2023.
• MORRIS, A. et al Readiness for sustainable community: a case study of Green Star Communities. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 173, n. March, p. 308–317, 2018.
• NEMATCHOUA, M. K. et al. A review on energy consumption in the residential and commercial buildings located in tropical regions of Indian Ocean: a case of Madagascar island. Journal of Energy Storage, v. 24, n. May, 2019.
• NEW SOUTH WALES. Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) Australia: NSW Government, 2025. Available: https://pp.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/development-and-assessment/basix Access: 12 maiy 2025.
  » https://pp.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/development-and-assessment/basix
• NGUYEN-PHUOC, D. Q. et al Investigating the complexity of perceived service quality and perceived safety and security in building loyalty among bus passengers in Vietnam – A PLS-SEM approach. Transport Policy, v. 101, n. December 2020, p. 162–173, 2021.
• OBATA, S. H. et al LEED certification as booster for sustainable buildings: insights for a Brazilian context. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, v. 145, n. March, p. 170–178, 2019.
• PENG, J. et al. Research on the factors of extremely short construction period under the sufficient resources based on Grey-DEMATEL-ISM. Plos One, v. 17, n. 3, p. 1–21, 2022.
• PHAM, D. H.; LEE, J.; AHN, Y. Implementing LEED v4 BD+C projects in Vietnam: contributions and challenges for general contractor. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 19, p. 1–17, 2019.
• PING HO, S. et al. Raising the demand for residential green buildings: a general consumer behavior model, the evidence, and the strategies. Building and Environment, March, 111267, 2024.
• POTBHARE, V.; SYAL, M.; KORKMAZ, S. Adoption of green building guidelines in developing countries based on U.S. and India experiences. Journal of Green Building, v. 4, n. 2, p. 158–174, 2009.
• QI, G. Y. et al The drivers for contractors green innovation: an industry perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 18, n. May, p. 1358–1365, 2010.
• QIAN, Q. K. et al Modeling the green building (GB) investment decisions of developers and end-users with transaction costs (TCs) considerations. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 109, n. April, p. 315–325, 2015.
• QIAN, Q. K.; CHAN, E. H. W. Government measures needed to promote building energy efficiency (BEE) in China. Facilities, v. 28, n. 11/12, p. 564–589, 2010.
• RIBEIRO, L. C. D. S. et al Structural decomposition analysis of Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions. World Development Sustainability, v. 2, n. March, p. 100067, 2023.
• SABBAGH, M. J.; MANSOUR, O. E.; BANAWI, A. A. Grease the green wheels: a framework for expediting the green building movement in the Arab world. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 20, 2019.
• SALDAÑA-MÁRQUEZ, H. et al Sustainable social housing: the comparison of the Mexican funding program for housing solutions and building sustainability rating systems. Building and Environment, v. 133, n. November 2017, p. 103–122, 2018.
• SAMARATUNGA, M. et al Modelling and analysis of post-occupancy behaviour in residential buildings to inform BASIX sustainability assessments in NSW. Procedia Engineering, v. 180, p. 343–355, 2017.
• SANTANA, W. B. et al Analysis of the barriers to the adoption of green buildings labels in Brazil by the Validated Interpretative Structural Modeling (VISM) technique. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 414, n. March, p. 137642, 2023a.
• SANTANA, W. B.; MAUÉS, L. M. F. environmental protection is not relevant in the perceived quality of life of low-income housing residents: a PLS-SEM approach in the Brazilian Amazon. Sustainability, v. 14, n. 13171, p. 19, 2022.
• SANTANA, W. et al Factors affecting the well-being at work and risk perception of construction workers: a Validated Interpretative Structural Modeling (VISM) aproach. Buildings, v. 13, n. November, p. 2906–2926, 2023b.
• SERVIÇO BRASILEIRO DE APOIO ÀS MICRO E PEQUENAS EMPRESAS. Total de empresas brasileiras de construção 2021. Available: https://datasebrae.com.br/totaldeempresas-11-05-2020/ Access: 4 nov. 2021.
  » https://datasebrae.com.br/totaldeempresas-11-05-2020/
• SHEN, W. et al. Understanding the green technical capabilities and barriers to green buildings in developing countries: a case study of Thailand. Sustainability, v. 10, n. 10, p. 1–17, 2018.
• SMARTMARKET. World Green Building Trends 2018 Bedford: Dodge Data & Analytics, 2018. Available: https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/World Green Building Trends 2018 SMR FINAL 10-11.pdf Acess: 4 nov. 2021.
  » https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/World Green Building Trends 2018 SMR FINAL 10-11.pdf
• SOUZA, F. da S. et al. Mapping and recycling proposal for the construction and demolition waste generated in the Brazilian Amazon. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 176, n. August 2021, p. 105896, 2022.
• SUNDAYI, S.; TRAMONTIN, V.; LOGGIA, C. An investigation into the costs and benefits of green building in South Africa. In: WORLD CONGRESS ON SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES, London, 2015. Proceedings […] Fortaleza: WCST, 2016.
• TENG, J. et al Strategies for sustainable development of green buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 44, January, p. 215-226, 2019.
• THIVES, L. P.; GHISI, E.; THIVES JÚNIOR, J. J. An outlook on the management of construction and demolition waste in Brazil. Cleaner Materials, v. 6, n. January, p. 100153, 2022.
• TRANSPARÊNCIA INTERNACIONAL BRASIL. Índice de percepção da corrupção 2019 2020. Available: https://transparenciainternacional.org.br/ipc/?utm_source=Ads&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Índice de Percepção da Corrupção&utm_term=Ranking da Corrupção&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjpWcyvCQ6wIVwQSRCh3vKAJIEAAYASAAEgJO3PD_BwE. Access: 10 ago. 2020.
  » https://transparenciainternacional.org.br/ipc/?utm_source=Ads&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Índice de Percepção da Corrupção&utm_term=Ranking da Corrupção&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjpWcyvCQ6wIVwQSRCh3vKAJIEAAYASAAEgJO3PD_BwE
• TSAI, W. T.; TSAI, C. H. Interactive analysis of green building materials promotion with relevance to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from Taiwan’s building sector. Energy and Buildings, v. 261, p. 111959, 2022.
• UNITED STATES GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL. Projects Available: https://www.usgbc.org/projects Access: 8 jan. 2025.
  » https://www.usgbc.org/projects
• AQUA-HQE^TM Processo AQUA - Construção Sustentável São Paulo: Fundação Vanzolini: 2025. Available: https://vanzolini.org.br/organizacoes/certificacoes/aqua-hqe/ Access: 9 may. 2025.
  » https://vanzolini.org.br/organizacoes/certificacoes/aqua-hqe/
• WATSON, K. J. et al. Re-conceiving building design quality: a review of building users in their social context. Indoor and Built Environment, v. 25, n. 3, p. 509–523, 2016.
• WONG, S. C.; ABE, N. Stakeholders’ perspectives of a building environmental assessment method: the case of CASBEE. Building and Environment, v. 82, p. 502–516, 2014.
• YANG, J.; YANG, Z. Critical factors affecting the implementation of sustainable housing in Australia. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, v. 30, n. April, p. 275–292, 2015.
• YU, Y. et al Effect of implementing building energy efficiency labeling in China: a case study in Shanghai. Energy Policy, v. 133, n. August, p. 1–12, 2019.
• ZHANG, L. et al Investigating Young Consumers’ Purchasing Intention of Green Housing in China. Sustainability, v. 10, n. April, p. 1–15, 2018.
• ZHANG, L.; WU, J.; LIU, H. Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 172, n. November 2017, p. 2234–2245, 2018.

Edited by

• Editor-chefe:
  Enedir Ghisi

• Editora convidada:
  Giane de Campos Grigoletti

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  26 Sept 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  28 Mar 2025
• Accepted
  05 July 2025