This chapter surveys the landscape of 14 of the best-known green building labels and some of their attributes. These labels include LEED, BREEAM, WELL, Green Star Australia, Green Mark Singapore, Green Globes, DGNB, BEAM, Three Star China, HQE, Green Star South Africa, CASBEE, EDGE, and the Living Building Challenge. It engages in an in-depth investigation of LEED.Common categories in these programs include energy efficiency, water efficiency, and materials and resource use. While the building owners and occupants may also benefit from having more efficient energy and water systems or more safe materials, these categories also convey some greater environmental benefit to the public. Therefore, it classifies the standards in these categories as intended for public benefit. While most systems prioritize environmental protection above all else at least, three systems have multiple or competing aims. The traits of these labels are related to the framework for ecolabels developed in Chapter 3 and the role that the structure of the labels plays in facilitating peer effects and other competitive drivers of Green Market Transformation is examined.

This chapter offers a theoretical framework to understand the variation of ecolabel design based on the content, governance, and context of the label.Drawing upon green clubs and signaling theories, we suggest that ecolabels vary based on the stringency of the certification program, measured by the number and criticality of required standards, and the extent to which the requirements of these certifications incentivize the provision of public goods. We characterize important dimensions of ecolabels such as their impact, the value of the signal, and the extent to which they address externalities and information asymmetries. To illustrate these concepts, we take a closer look at GreenCo, a business sustainability rating system in India, and a sample of over 50 different agricultural ecolabels. This examination shows the important variation in factors like types of requirements, stringency, and institutional processes that govern the labels. Perhaps unsurprisingly, broader stakeholder engagement is associated with more emphasis on public benefits, while more surprisingly industry sponsorship does not tend to be found among the more lax labels with less public benefit.