Zero-Carbon Buildings in Cities

Cities possess a range of strengths in advancing WLC policies for buildings. As discussed in Chapter 4, some city governments are leveraging their unique advantages to pioneer ambitious policies. However, effective policy implementation cannot be achieved without robust vertical co-ordination mechanisms. While city-level policies determine specific details of land use, building and planning regulations, WLC standards are usually subject to national policies. This highlights a two-way relationship between local and national actions on climate change, as action at local scale may enable or constrain what is possible at the national level and vice versa (OECD, 2010[1]). Therefore, vertical co-ordination is essential to overcome institutional constraints and narrow the policy gaps across levels of government that hamper the effectiveness of local actions.

The OECD Global Survey on Decarbonising Buildings in Cities and Regions (2022) has shown that 74% of surveyed cities and regions stated they do not receive enough support from the national government for decarbonising buildings (OECD, 2022[2]). In addition, the OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) has revealed that disparities between local and national WLC measures, alongside inconsistent methodologies, pose challenges to ambitious city-led initiatives, potentially expose subnational authorities to legal risks, and strain local government capacity.

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) shows that in most of the surveyed countries that have implemented WLC policies (Denmark, France, and Sweden), local governments are required to follow the national government’s policy decisions without a subnational breakdown of quantitative targets or the autonomy to adjust building policies or regulations locally.

In some cases, local governments are implementing stricter policies than the national government (i.e. Espoo and Helsinki, Finland) and the national government adopted local guidelines at the national level (i.e. Vancouver, Canada). In the absence of national policies, some local governments must follow the regional government’s WLC standards (i.e. Greater London, UK). The variability across different levels of government underscores the need for enhanced policy coherence to align mandates, policies, and sectoral objectives across government institutions, ensuring consistent and effective implementation of WLC policies for buildings.

While cities and regions often have competencies over local building regulations and building energy efficiency measures, discrepancies can arise between subnational and national policy frameworks, particularly when city governments are pursuing more ambitious objectives than those set at the national level. As revealed by responses to the OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024), a city government actively pursuing ambitious climate goals in the building sector can encounter significant obstacles in implementing local building and urban planning regulations if the national government challenges the legality of such measures. Without a coherent policy framework that aligns national and local legislations, countries could miss out on the opportunity to leverage effective city-level initiatives for scalable national policies.

Cities that have already implemented WLC policies may lose motivation to advance their initiatives if national policies are scheduled for implementation several years later. This scenario underscores the need for flexibility in national policy frameworks to accommodate local contexts and recognise existing progress. Inflexible national policies risk discouraging cities from pursuing ambitious WLC standards. Concerns about future adjustments to align with national standards might deter cities from pioneering these standards, potentially hindering progress towards global sustainability goals.

Furthermore, the lack of a coherent, standardised WLC calculation methodology throughout a country increases the cost for capacity building at the local level. Given the technical nature of WLC assessment, city governments can face difficulties in implementing emission limit values and tender award criteria based on life-cycle emissions from buildings. Inconsistencies in WLC methodology and assessment tools across different cities and regions within a country further complicate policy development, leading to higher costs both for local governments and for companies to build technical capacity. In addition, disparities across WLC methods may complicate LCA application process, disrupt market performance, and even expose subnational governments to legal risks, including potential litigation challenges from construction companies, as indicated by survey responses.

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) reveals that national and local governments face distinct challenges regarding the implementation of WLC policies. While the top three challenges identified by survey respondents are the workload placed on developers, construction companies, and/or architects when calculating WLC, the lack of EPD data, and the affordability of WLC calculation, the capacity constraints of local authorities are often overlooked. Five out of seven local government respondents considered workload imposed on local authorities as a main challenge during policy implementation, while four out of seven local government respondents indicated the shortage of WLC experts within their local authority. By contrast, only one national government respondent saw these issues as main challenges (Figure 5.1). The disparity in perceived challenges underscores the need for effective vertical co-ordination mechanisms across levels of government that are essential for ensuring that local challenges can be effectively communicated to the national government. It is crucial for national governments to identify and understand capacity constraints (i.e. lack of technical expertise) at subnational level when developing national policies. Such understanding is key for formulating feasible policies that account for diverse contexts and support targeted capacity building initiatives tailored to local needs.

In addition, the survey indicates a lack of vertical co-ordination mechanisms regarding WLC policies in the surveyed countries. Only 4 (Denmark, France, Germany, and Japan) out of 11 national governments that participated in the survey have platforms or mechanisms in place to discuss and co-ordinate with subnational governments on WLC policies for buildings. These platforms and mechanisms include regular meetings or committees, dedicated task forces or working groups, online collaboration platforms or forums, and joint projects or initiatives. Such mechanisms play a crucial role in facilitating communication and dialogue between national and subnational governments regarding buildings policies.

For instance, Germany’s annual Conference of Building Ministers convenes the ministers and senators responsible for urban development, construction, and housing from the country’s 16 states, with regular attendance by the Federal Minister for Housing, Urban Development and Building. This vertical co-ordination platform ensures the uniform application of building and construction regulations across the states and makes key policy decisions, such as determining the model building code, which forms the basis for state building codes (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wohnen, Bau und Verkehr, n.d.[3]). In 2024, the Conference passed a resolution on Germany’s Building Energy Act, emphasising the importance of considering life-cycle GHG emissions when implementing the EPBD (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wohnen, Bau und Verkehr, 2024[4]).

Leveraging cities as testbeds can enable national governments to implement ambitious policies and identify scalable measures (OECD, 2024[5]). Successful city-led initiatives often generate valuable data and insights that can facilitate policy making at the national level. However, scaling up successful local WLC measures requires effective vertical co-ordination between national and subnational governments.

Canada’s federal government demonstrates the potential of harnessing local initiatives by adapting city-level guidelines on embodied carbon for nation-wide use. In 2024, the National Research Council Canada and the Construction Research Centre published the National Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment Practitioner’s Guide, which was adapted from the City of Vancouver’s Embodied Carbon Guidelines. The new National Guide complements the existing National Guidelines for Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment with additional guidance on embodied carbon assessments of new buildings and renovation of buildings and has been referenced by Canada Green Building Council (CAGBC)’s standard. It is also intended to support the compliance with the Standard on Embodied Carbon in Construction for major federal government construction projects. The federal government encourages local governments to adopt the same guides (National Research Council of Canada, 2024[6]).

Providing financial aid to subnational governments is another effective policy instrument to boost local efforts for WLC of buildings. Launched in January 2023 by Natural Resources Canada, the Codes Acceleration Fund is designed to assist subnational governments in adopting the highest feasible energy performance tiers within building codes to reduce GHG emissions and energy use (Natural Resources Canada, 2023[7]). The Code Acceleration Fund targets Canadian provinces, territories, municipalities, as well as Indigenous governments and communities that have the authority to adopt energy codes, addressing gaps in code compliance and enforcement at the local level (Natural Resources Canada, 2024[8]). For instance, the City of Vancouver received CAD 2.98 million in funding through the Codes Acceleration Fund for the adoption and implementation of Canada’s first embodied carbon code and existing building GHG emission regulations (Government of Canada, 2024[9]).

Support from the national government is essential to build the capacity of local authorities, particularly municipalities and smaller cities, to implement WLC policies for buildings. The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) shows that supervision and monitoring are the most prevalent capacity building support from national governments to local governments, in four out of seven respondent countries (Table 5.1).

At the same time, supervision and monitoring alone are insufficient to unlock the potential of cities to implement WLC policies. National governments can provide support to local authorities through an array of policy instruments, including education and capacity building for the local industry, pilot projects, and adjustment of national policies or regulations to local scale. However, the survey reveals that only two out of seven city respondents (Espoo, Finland, and Vancouver, Canada) receive support for capacity building and technical assistance from the national government.

A wider range of support from the national level can bolster local governments’ capacity to implement WLC policies. The survey finds that in the case of Espoo (Finland), which has implemented more stringent policies than the national government, the national level provides the city with various types of support, including funding for training programmes and workshops, hosting annual conferences focused on WLC policy implementation, and distributing toolkits and guidelines tailored to local government needs. Furthermore, according to the survey, all three countries that have implemented WLC policies for buildings (Denmark, France, and Sweden) offer training programmes for local governments on WLC of buildings (Table 5.2). This shows that support from the national level is a key enabler for effective implementation of WLC policies across regions within a country.

Horizontal collaboration across ministries and government agencies is key to overcome potential discrepancies regarding WLC policies for buildings. According to the OECD Global Survey on Buildings and Climate (2024), 93% of respondent countries have at least three ministries involved in decarbonising buildings (OECD, 2024[5]). The fragmentation of buildings policy making and implementation responsibilities across different branches within a subnational government unit also hampers the effectiveness of WLC policies for buildings at the local level. There is a critical need for horizontal co-ordination among ministries and government agencies at the national, as well as at the subnational level to break siloes and develop coherent strategies. The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) shows that subnational governments can create political momentum to influence national policy through inter-municipal collaboration, while inter-ministerial collaboration can facilitate an effective dialogue across the government agencies and greater access to information, and countries can benefit from inter-governmental collaboration by sharing knowledge and resources.

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) shows that six out of seven surveyed cities (Helsinki, Greater London, Malmö, Oslo, Tokyo, and Vancouver) take part in horizontal collaboration mechanisms involving subnational governments.

Sweden’s “Climate Municipalities” (Klimatkommunerna) show how inter-municipal collaboration can leverage synergies at the local level to promote WLC policies for buildings. This association brings together 54 subnational governments for regular meetings, engaging them in policy dialogues with the national government, and facilitating knowledge-sharing on local climate action (Klimatkommunerna, 2024[10]). The association also leverages the political momentum at the local level to advocate for emission limit values that are stricter than those set forth by the national government (Klimatkommunerna, 2024[11]) (Box 5.1).

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) showed that the number of ministries and agencies at the national level involved in WLC of buildings ranges from three to seven (Table 5.3). Considering this large number of entities involved in the decarbonisation agenda, horizontal collaboration across ministries and agencies within the government structure is crucial in delineating a coherent long-term vision and mobilising resources to assist various government agencies. Countries can deploy a range of mechanisms to strengthen horizontal collaboration across ministries, such as inter-ministerial platforms. For instance, Japan has established an Inter-Ministerial Liaison Meeting for Building Life-cycle carbon Reduction to develop WLC assessment roadmaps involving related ministries and agencies, with the Cabinet Secretariat and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism serving as a joint secretariat (Box 5.2). This demonstrates a robust political ambition to break down ministerial siloes and integrate existing work streams distributed across government agencies at the national level. The Inter-Ministerial Liaison Meeting also facilitates collaboration with other stakeholder engagement platforms, such as the Zero Carbon Buildings Promotion Council and the EPD Promotion Council.

International collaboration offers valuable opportunities for knowledge exchange and regional harmonisation of WLC measures for buildings. On the one hand, national governments can leverage the experience and resources of countries that share a common political ambition through structured dialogue and information sharing to develop WLC calculation methodologies, databases, and digital tools. On the other hand, horizontal collaboration mechanisms, such as inter-governmental platforms, inter-ministerial fora, and joint research programmes, create political momentum and commitments for harmonising legislation, methodologies, and policies on the built environment across countries.

Nordic Sustainable Construction is an example of horizontal collaboration across Nordic countries (Box 5.3). This collaborative programme, under the Nordic Council of Ministers, works towards the harmonisation of LCA policies, methodologies, limit values, and BIM-based LCA across Nordic countries, supporting shared goals under the Nordic Vision 2030 (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2024[12]). The 2023 Nordic Ministerial Declaration further strengthens this commitment to low-carbon construction by pledging to align policies, tools, and data across Nordic countries (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2023[13]). Effective inter-governmental collaboration can leverage the collective knowledge and experience in implementing methods and legislation for WLC of buildings, while identifying opportunities for more efficient division of work and shared pathways for future development (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2023[14]).

By addressing discrepancies and similarities across countries, horizontal collaboration mechanisms across countries pave the way for harmonising WLC policies across countries, aligning limit values, and enhancing consistency of LCA. This allows the construction industry to evaluate limit values and LCA calculation across countries efficiently, accelerating the market transition towards a low carbon-built environment.

Engaging the private sector and research institutes is crucial in creating an enabling environment for WLC policies. Given the varying technical capacity and resources of different levels of government, support from the private sector and the academia is an important success factor in effective WLC policy development. Public-private-academic partnerships play an instrumental role in developing digital tools and methodologies for WLC calculation, while providing resources to train and upskill workers in the construction industry. In addition, these partnerships can help clarify roles and responsibilities for various stakeholders.

Public-private-academic partnerships can harness the potential of multi-stakeholder knowledge co-creation and generate impact on innovation for sustainable building practices. According to the OECD (2013[15]), public-private partnerships (PPPs) are long-term contractual agreements between the government and a private partner whereby the latter typically finances and delivers public services using a capital asset (e.g. transport or energy infrastructure, hospital or school buildings). The private party may be tasked with the design, construction, financing, operation, management, and delivery of the service for a pre-determined period of time, receiving its compensation from fixed unitary payments or tolls charged to users. Public-private partnerships blend the regulatory guidance and policy support from the public sector with the innovation, resources, and execution capabilities of the private sector (OECD, 2024[5]). Governments expect private sector engagement to bolster government capacity to achieve its objectives by mobilising the resources (money, technology, and knowledge) of the private sector (OECD, 2018[16]). Furthermore, the OECD finds that public support for science-industry collaboration is shifting towards a more interactive, long-term model of knowledge co-creation that involves stakeholders from industry, civil society, research and government (OECD, 2019[17]).

The complex nature of building policies underscores the relevance of multi-stakeholder partnerships. Real estate developers, investors, and financial institutions are crucial in addressing WLC of buildings, given that the majority of the building stock is owned by the private sector and the construction of net-zero carbon buildings relies on private funds. Besides, universities, research institutes, and the scientific community contribute to the development of calculation methodologies for carbon emission of buildings, while conducting studies on the environmental, socio-economic, and technical practices for low-carbon buildings. Stakeholders such as manufacturers and suppliers play an essential role in developing and producing low-carbon building materials. By contrast, professionals such as architects, contractors, designers, engineers, green building and energy consultants, and procurement professionals are responsible for planning and implementing the WLC approach in the construction process. They do so by providing building specifications, integrating low-carbon and energy-efficient design elements, ensuring quality control and effective logistics, estimating LCC, and conducting site investigations and analyses (Falana, Osei-Kyei and Tam, 2024[18]). Public-private-academic partnerships create formal channels for knowledge co-creation by leveraging private sector’s technical expertise and research institutes’ capacity to develop WLC calculation methodologies.

However, the wide range of stakeholders with varying levels of engagement throughout the long span of the building life-cycle implies potential conflicts and confusion due to competing interests (Falana, Osei-Kyei and Tam, 2024[18]). This complex policy landscape highlights the need for robust public-private-academic partnerships to gather different stakeholders and facilitate effective collaboration across various sectors, clarifying roles and responsibilities in developing and implementing WLC policies.

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) reveals that national and city governments consider the development of methodologies and databases, training and capacity building, as well as the development of assessment tools as the three most important aspects of public-private-academic partnerships (Figure 5.2).

The evidence drawn from the survey also shows that private sector engagement cannot be overlooked when governments pursue ambitious WLC policies. Premature implementation of WLC policies without a without a clearly defined and consolidated methodology will send conflicting signals to the private sector and risks distorting market performance. In contrast, governments can benefit from a proactive buildings and construction sector to pioneer successful policies. For instance, Vancouver (Canada) indicated in the survey that the backing of local and international industry leaders and experts is one of the reasons the city was able to take action ahead of the federal government in Canada, as these stakeholders provided critical insights informing the city’s WLC policies for buildings. The city also emphasised the importance of public-private-academic partnerships for advancing research into innovative low-embodied carbon materials and solutions.

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) provides evidence on how joint efforts involving private sector actors can advance WLC policies instruments. Indeed, including diverse actors throughout the construction value chain, such as construction companies, architectural firms, and building material providers, as well as research institutes helps enhance an enabling environment for WLC policies. The survey shows that governments are mobilising resources from the private sector to develop WLC assessment tools, methodologies, and database (Figure 5.3). This approach combines the regulatory guidance and policy support from the government with the innovative and technical capabilities of various stakeholders.

For instance, Brazil’s Information System for Environmental Performance in Construction (SIDAC) shows that partnerships involving public agencies, private companies, and researchers are key to develop a national database on EPDs and LCA (Box 5.4). SIDAC’s development is co-ordinated by the Brazilian Council for Sustainable Construction (CBCS), a nationwide civil society organisation comprising academia, construction companies, manufacturers, government representatives, and other stakeholders in the construction industry. Major public utilities companies, associations of construction companies, and research institutions play an important role in the development process to refine methodologies, gather stakeholder feedback on prototypes, and develop assessment tools, such as the CECarbon (SIDAC, 2024[19]; Fernanda Belizario-Silva, 2023[20]; CECarbon, 2020[21]; SIDAC, 2024[22]).

Japan's public-private-academic partnership demonstrates effective collaboration in developing WLC calculation tools (Box 5.5. Japan’s Zero Carbon Building Promotion Committee. The Institute for Built Environment and Carbon Neutral for SDGs (IBECs) serves as a platform for research and technological development related to housing, architecture, and cities, including the built environment and energy conservation (IBECs, 2024[23]). The Zero Carbon Building Promotion Committee, established with the IBECs in 2022, engages a full range of stakeholders including local governments, universities, four associations of construction, architecture, and real estate companies, and several ministries (IBECs, 2024[24]). The Committee launched the J-CAT, a Japanese WLC assessment tool for calculating GHG emissions throughout the entire building life-cycle, in 2024 (IBECs, 2024[25]; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2024[26]).

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) reveals that only two national and one local government respondents have introduced WLC training programmes based on public-private partnership. However, these examples demonstrate the potential of public-private-academic partnerships in providing training programmes on WLC. As labour shortages and upskilling in the construction sector become more pressing issues, governments can tap into the sector’s resources to address skill gaps and ensure long-term competitiveness of the construction industry.

For instance, the Nordic Sustainable Construction offers an example of effective public-private-academic collaboration, leveraging expertise from Nordic countries’ sustainability consulting firms and Denmark’s national Knowledge Centre for Crafts and Sustainability to develop educational materials on sustainable building practices. Skills4Reuse is an online platform that provides comprehensive introductory courses on the reuse and recycling of wood and brick (Skills4Reuse, n.d.[27]). This initiative contributes to a collective effort in the Nordic region towards enhancing the circularity of building materials, as well as upskilling current and future workers in sustainable building practices.

The Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC) Digital Academy provides built environment and sustainability professionals and practitioners with on-demand access to over 30 webinars on green buildings. The online platform offers webinars on whole life carbon (Singapore Green Building Council, n.d.[28]). The SGBC is a non-profit industry-led organisation that facilitates public-private partnerships and fosters innovative industry solutions across the entire building and construction value chain (Singapore Green Building Council, n.d.[29]). Similarly, the Israeli Green Building Council (ILGBC) provides professional courses on LCA and the revision of the Green Building Standard in collaboration with the country's Ministry of Environmental Protection (Israeli Green Building Council, 2024[30]). The ILGBC serves as a non-profit platform for public-private-academic partnership by bringing together more than 270 member organisations from the construction industry, local and central governments, professional community, academia, and NGOs (Israeli Green Building Council, n.d.[31]).Clarify roles and responsibilities through multi-stakeholder engagement.

The vast number of stakeholders involved in the entire life-cycle of buildings creates a complex policy landscape that requires clearly defined roles and responsibilities for various stakeholders. Some countries have adopted a multi-stakeholder approach to allow for the identification and clarification of roles and responsibilities in setting life-cycle assessment methodologies.

The Netherlands has developed a public-private partnership model to delineate the roles of various stakeholders. The Nationale Milieudatabase (NMD) is an independent organisation managing the Environmental Performance Assessment Method for Construction Works and its database (Nationale Milieudatabase, 2024[32]) (Box 5.6. The Netherlands’ National Environmental Database). The NMD is overseen by the Netherlands Policy Committee on Environmental Performance (BMNL), which brings together 18 stakeholder parties including public and private clients, data suppliers, and users. In parallel, there is a Technical Committee engaging experts from the construction sector, allowing them to share knowledge and industry perspectives (Nationale Milieudatabase, 2024[33]). By collaborating with the industry, this governance structure clarifies roles and responsibilities in setting methodologies on LCA that are separate from policy making and political decisions on regulations. The BMNL’s governance framework also safeguards the independence of the NMD, ensuring that it remains impartial and resilient to commercial or political influence while meeting the evolving energy and environmental standards.

[4] Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wohnen, Bau und Verkehr (2024), Pressemitteilung der 145. Bauministerkonferenz, https://www.bauministerkonferenz.de/IndexSearch.aspx?method=get&File=bya892ba82y1b9bbba8a4a8yb9bb92b8y9ya8ayyb9y884b992a2a0a1a0a2a3a1aa4b80b8y0epqcvcjbjukyvsxvhkprftyg.

[3] Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wohnen, Bau und Verkehr (n.d.), STRUKTUR UND AUFGABEN, https://www.bauministerkonferenz.de/verzeichnis.aspx?id=762&o=759O762.

[21] CECarbon (2020), Sobre a CECarbon, https://cecarbon.com.br/about.

[18] Falana, J., R. Osei-Kyei and V. Tam (2024), “Towards achieving a net zero carbon building: A review of key stakeholders and their roles in net zero carbon building whole life cycle”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108223.

[20] Fernanda Belizario-Silva, L. (2023), “The Sidac system: Streamlining the assessment of the embodied energy and CO2 of Brazilian construction products”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138461.

[9] Government of Canada (2024), Funded initiatives announced with the Canada Green Buildings Strategy, https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2024/07/funded-initiatives-announced-with-the-canada-green-buildings-strategy.html.

[23] IBECs (2024), About us, https://www.ibecs.or.jp/english/index.html.

[25] IBECs (2024), J-CAT／Japan Carbon Assessment Tool for Building Lifecycle, https://www.ibecs.or.jp/english/JCAT/index.html.

[24] IBECs (2024), ゼロカーボンビル（LCCO2 ネットゼロ）推進会議 委員名簿, https://www.ibecs.or.jp/zero-carbon_building/files/ZeroCarbonBuildingPC_member240701.pdf.

[30] Israeli Green Building Council (2024), WBLCA Professional Webinar, https://ilgbc.org/course/wblca/.

[31] Israeli Green Building Council (n.d.), About the Israeli Green Building Council (ILGBC), https://ilgbc.org/about/about-ilgbc/.

[10] Klimatkommunerna (2024), Our mission, https://klimatkommunerna.se/in-english/.

[11] Klimatkommunerna (2024), Premiera hållbart byggande, https://klimatkommunerna.se/vad-vi-vill/vad-vi-vill-bygg/.

[26] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2024), 建築物のライフサイクルカーボン算定ツール試行版を公開しました！, https://www.mlit.go.jp/report/press/house04_hh_001226.html.

[6] National Research Council of Canada (2024), National whole-building life cycle assessment practitioner’s guide, https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=533906ca-65eb-4118-865d-855030d91ef2.

[32] Nationale Milieudatabase (2024), An introduction to the NMD, https://milieudatabase.nl/en/an-introduction-to-the-nmd/.

[33] Nationale Milieudatabase (2024), Organisation NMD, https://milieudatabase.nl/en/about-us/organisation/.

[8] Natural Resources Canada (2024), Codes Acceleration Fund, https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/buildings/codes-acceleration-fund/24794.

[7] Natural Resources Canada (2023), Natural Resources Canada Launches Call for Proposals for the Delivery of the Codes Acceleration Fund, https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2023/01/natural-resources-canada-launches-call-for-proposals-for-the-delivery-of-the-codes-acceleration-fund.html.

[12] Nordic Sustainable Construction (2024), Work Packages, https://www.nordicsustainableconstruction.com/work-packages.

[13] Nordic Sustainable Construction (2023), Nordic Ministerial Declaration on Commitment to Low Carbon Construction, https://www.nordicsustainableconstruction.com/knowledge/2023/november/nordic-ministerial-declaration-on-commitment-to-low-carbon-construction.

[14] Nordic Sustainable Construction (2023), Roadmap: Harmonising Nordic Building Regulations concerning Climate Emissions, https://www.nordicsustainableconstruction.com/Media/638302229397775948/Roadmap%20for%20harmonising%20Nordic%20Building%20Regulations%20concerning%20Climate%20Emissions.pdf.

[5] OECD (2024), Global Monitoring of Policies for Decarbonising Buildings: A Multi-level Approach, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/global-monitoring-of-policies-for-decarbonising-buildings_d662fdcb-en.html.

[2] OECD (2022), Decarbonising Buildings in Cities and Regions, https://doi.org/10.1787/a48ce566-en.

[17] OECD (2019), University-Industry Collaboration : New Evidence and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9c1e648-en.

[16] OECD (2018), Subnational Public-Private Partnerships: Meeting Infrastructure Challenges, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304864-en.

[15] OECD (2013), Government at a Glance 2013, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2013-en.

[1] OECD (2010), Cities and Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091375-en.

[19] SIDAC (2024), About Us - Development of SIDAC, https://sidac.org.br/quem_somos/desenvolvimento.

[22] SIDAC (2024), About Us - Governance of Sidac, https://sidac.org.br/quem_somos/governanca.

[29] Singapore Green Building Council (n.d.), About Us, https://www.sgbc.sg/about-us/.

[28] Singapore Green Building Council (n.d.), Unpacking Green Mark: 2021 Sustainability Sections:, https://digitalacademy.sgbc.sg/course/unpacking-green-mark-2021-sustainability-sections-whole-life-carbon-cn-and-intelligence-in.

[27] Skills4Reuse (n.d.), About Skills4Reuse, https://www.en.skills4reuse.com/about-us.