Infrastructure Sustainability
A practical guide to Australia's IS Rating Scheme, explaining how infrastructure sustainability is assessed across major projects and long term public assets.
For infrastructure owners, project teams, government agencies and consultants seeking to understand IS Rating requirements, sustainability credits, evidence pathways and certification throughout the infrastructure project lifecycle.
Discuss Your IS Rating PathwayIn Brief
An IS Rating is an evidence-based infrastructure sustainability assessment delivered through the IS Rating Scheme administered by the Infrastructure Sustainability Council. It provides a structured framework for measuring, assessing and recognising sustainability performance across infrastructure projects, programs, networks and operational assets.
The term ISCA is still commonly used across the infrastructure sector and refers to the organisation formerly known as the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia. Today, the organisation is known as the Infrastructure Sustainability Council, or ISC, while the assessment framework itself is referred to as the IS Rating Scheme.
The scheme can be applied across planning, design, construction and operation, with projects assessed through defined credits, documented evidence and independent verification. Its requirements address governance, environmental, social and economic performance while encouraging sustainability objectives to be integrated early into infrastructure decision making and delivery.
Defined credits address governance, environmental, social and economic performance, supported by project evidence, measurable outcomes and independent verification.
It may be used for transport, water, utilities, public assets, precinct infrastructure and other major works requiring a recognised sustainability assessment pathway.
It creates a consistent pathway for setting objectives, documenting evidence and verifying infrastructure sustainability outcomes throughout the relevant project or asset stage.
Knowledge Navigation
Use this guide to understand the IS Rating Scheme, how infrastructure sustainability is assessed and how sustainability credits, evidence and project delivery contribute to recognised infrastructure outcomes.
Foundation
Understand the Infrastructure Sustainability Council, the IS Rating Scheme and how infrastructure sustainability is assessed across major Australian projects.
Rating Framework
Explore how the IS Rating Scheme assesses infrastructure sustainability through recognised credits, evidence and independent verification.
Project Application
See where IS Ratings are commonly applied across transport, utilities, public infrastructure, precincts and major capital works.
Project Delivery
Follow how IS Rating requirements are applied from planning and design through construction, handover and long term operation.
Sustainability Credits
Understand how energy, carbon and resource initiatives contribute evidence towards IS Rating outcomes.
Climate Adaptation
See how resilience objectives contribute to infrastructure sustainability and support IS Rating evidence.
Resource Credits
Learn how water, material and waste initiatives contribute towards infrastructure sustainability credits.
Project Governance
Learn how governance, procurement, evidence management and independent verification support successful IS Rating certification.
Infrastructure Sustainability
ISCA is the former name of the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia, now known as the Infrastructure Sustainability Council, or ISC. The term remains widely used in Australian infrastructure projects and is often used informally when referring to the organisation, its assessment framework or an associated IS Rating pathway.
The formal assessment framework is the IS Rating Scheme. It provides a structured and evidence based system for measuring, assessing and recognising sustainability performance across infrastructure projects, assets, portfolios and networks. The scheme considers environmental, social and economic performance within an infrastructure context rather than treating sustainability as a separate report produced at the end of delivery.
For major infrastructure projects, an IS Rating can shape how sustainability objectives, credits, evidence and responsibilities are coordinated throughout planning, design, construction and operation. Early integration can influence project governance, procurement, consultant inputs, documentation and verification, helping the project team pursue a defined rating outcome through the relevant project or asset stage.
The terminology can be confusing because ISCA remains a common industry and search term, while ISC is the current organisational name. For project teams, the more important distinction is between the organisation and the IS Rating pathway applied to a project, asset or program.
The former name of the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia and a term still commonly used in project language, procurement documents and online searches.
The Infrastructure Sustainability Council, the organisation that administers the IS Rating Scheme and advances infrastructure sustainability practice across Australia and New Zealand.
An infrastructure sustainability assessment undertaken through the IS Rating Scheme using defined credits, documented evidence, scoring and independent verification.
Rating Pathways
The IS Rating Scheme provides a structured pathway for assessing and recognising sustainability performance across infrastructure projects, programs, networks and operational assets. It uses defined credits, documented evidence and verification to evaluate how sustainability objectives are incorporated into project governance, delivery and asset outcomes.
The rating pathway is generally most effective when it is established early. Project objectives, credit responsibilities, evidence requirements and procurement obligations can then be integrated into planning and design rather than reconstructed near the end of delivery. Late engagement can limit available options and make it more difficult to demonstrate that rating requirements have been met.
For project teams, an IS Rating pathway acts as both an assessment framework and a coordination system. It helps define the intended rating outcome, allocate responsibility for individual credits, organise supporting evidence and maintain continuity from early project decisions through construction, verification and operation.
The proposed rating pathway, sustainability objectives and credit strategy can inform option assessment, project requirements, governance arrangements and procurement documentation.
Design teams develop credit responses and supporting evidence, with specialist inputs such as Life Cycle Assessment or embodied carbon reporting used where relevant to the selected rating strategy.
Delivery teams implement credit commitments, maintain procurement and construction records, collect evidence and document how the approved sustainability strategy has been carried into the completed works.
Operational rating pathways assess how infrastructure is managed, monitored and improved after completion, supported by asset data, management systems and evidence of ongoing performance.
Major Project Pathways
An IS Rating may be relevant when a project brief, infrastructure owner, government agency, procurement process or delivery contract requires a recognised sustainability assessment pathway. A rating may also be pursued voluntarily where an organisation wants infrastructure sustainability commitments to be assessed through a structured and independently verified framework.
IS Ratings are commonly associated with transport, water, energy, utilities, public infrastructure, precinct works and other major capital projects. These projects often involve multiple delivery partners, staged design and construction, extensive evidence requirements and long-term responsibilities that need to remain coordinated across the project or asset lifecycle.
The key question is not simply whether a project intends to pursue a rating, but which IS Rating pathway applies, what outcome is being targeted and how individual credit responsibilities will be assigned. Clarifying this early helps connect client requirements, consultant inputs, procurement obligations, construction records and verification evidence before avoidable gaps emerge.
A rating may be specified by an infrastructure owner, government agency, project brief, procurement framework or contractual sustainability requirement.
Major projects may use the IS Rating Scheme to coordinate credits, responsibilities, evidence and verification across clients, consultants, contractors and delivery stages.
Asset owners may voluntarily pursue an IS Rating to establish measurable objectives, demonstrate verified outcomes and strengthen consistency across infrastructure delivery and operation.
Project Lifecycle
An IS Rating pathway can extend across several stages of infrastructure planning, delivery and asset management. Decisions made early in the project can influence which credits remain achievable, what evidence will be required and how sustainability responsibilities need to be distributed between the client, consultants, contractors and asset operator.
The rating process helps connect the intended IS Rating outcome with practical project activities such as option assessment, design development, procurement, construction documentation, evidence collection, verification and handover. Each stage produces different decisions and records, making continuity important as project teams and contractual responsibilities change.
When rating requirements are introduced late, teams may need to reconstruct evidence or revisit decisions that can no longer be readily changed. Establishing the IS Rating pathway early allows credits, evidence requirements and review points to be incorporated into normal project governance rather than treated as a separate reporting task.
The target rating, applicable pathway, credit strategy, governance structure and procurement expectations can be defined before major project decisions restrict the available response.
Design teams develop credit responses, coordinate specialist inputs and document how project decisions support the selected IS Rating strategy and evidence requirements.
Delivery teams implement credit commitments, retain procurement and construction records and provide evidence that the approved sustainability measures were carried into the works.
Operational pathways use asset information, management systems and measured evidence to assess how infrastructure performance is maintained and improved after completion.
Infrastructure delivery often involves different organisations at each stage. Rating continuity helps ensure that credit commitments, evidence and responsibilities are not lost during design development, procurement, construction or handover.
Some IS Rating credits may rely on specialist studies or datasets. For example, a Life Cycle Assessment may support defined whole-of-life comparisons, while embodied carbon reporting may provide evidence for relevant carbon or material-related credit responses. These specialist methodologies remain separate technical workstreams within the broader IS Rating strategy.
Clear coordination helps connect these specialist inputs to the correct credits, project milestones and verification requirements. This allows the rating submission to reflect documented project decisions rather than relying on disconnected reports assembled near the end of delivery.
IS Rating Performance Areas
The IS Rating Scheme assesses infrastructure sustainability through a broad set of credit areas rather than a single environmental measure. Depending on the applicable pathway and project scope, the assessment may consider how environmental, social and governance objectives are incorporated into infrastructure planning, delivery and asset management.
Individual credit responses may address resource use, emissions, resilience, ecological impacts, community outcomes, stakeholder engagement, procurement and management systems. These subjects are assessed within the rating framework through defined requirements, project evidence and verification rather than as disconnected sustainability statements.
This structure allows an IS Rating pathway to examine both project outcomes and the systems used to deliver them. The rating process therefore considers not only what a project intends to achieve, but also how responsibilities are assigned, decisions are documented and claimed outcomes are supported across relevant project stages.
Major infrastructure projects involve interconnected technical, social and organisational decisions. The IS Rating Scheme brings relevant credit responses into a consistent evidence and verification process.
Credit responses may address emissions, energy, water, materials, waste, ecology, pollution prevention, adaptation and responsible resource use.
Credit responses may consider stakeholder engagement, community outcomes, accessibility, inclusion, workforce considerations and broader infrastructure value.
Credit responses may address leadership, procurement, management systems, responsibility allocation, documentation, assurance and evidence control.
IS Rating responsibilities are commonly distributed across clients, designers, technical specialists, contractors and asset teams. A coordinated credit strategy helps connect their separate inputs to common rating requirements, evidence milestones and verification expectations.
Energy, Carbon and Resource Credits
Energy, carbon and resource efficiency can contribute to several credit responses within an IS Rating pathway. The relevant requirements depend on the project scope, rating type and selected credit strategy, with project teams expected to demonstrate how performance objectives have been incorporated into planning, design, procurement, construction and asset management.
Different evidence streams may be required to support these claims. Energy assessments may address anticipated or measured asset demand, while embodied carbon reporting or a Life Cycle Assessment may support relevant material, carbon or whole-of-life comparisons. These specialist studies remain separate technical inputs within the broader rating submission.
The role of the IS Rating process is to connect those inputs to the applicable credits, project decisions and verification requirements. This helps ensure that claimed improvements are supported by defined baselines, documented actions and evidence that can be reviewed through the rating pathway.
Project teams may need to establish energy baselines, document proposed improvements and provide evidence that relevant operational energy commitments have been implemented.
Carbon-related credit responses may rely on defined baselines, comparative studies, material data and documented reduction measures aligned with the selected rating strategy.
Resource-related credits may consider material efficiency, responsible sourcing, waste outcomes, durability and the evidence used to demonstrate project improvements.
Relevant credit responses may recognise decisions that consider maintenance, replacement, durability, operating requirements and longer-term asset value.
The evidence required for energy, carbon and resource credits is often shaped by early option selection, design assumptions, material decisions and procurement requirements. Delayed coordination can restrict available improvements or leave important baseline information undocumented.
Within an IS Rating pathway, these subjects should therefore be connected to the relevant credits, responsibilities and review milestones from the beginning of the project rather than assembled as isolated calculations near submission.
Climate Resilience Credits
Infrastructure assets are often expected to provide essential services for many decades. The relevant IS Rating response may therefore need to consider how changing climate conditions could affect asset function, service delivery, safety, maintenance and long-term infrastructure value.
Within the rating pathway, resilience is addressed through defined project risks, documented responses and evidence that climate-related considerations have informed relevant planning, design and operational decisions.
Climate resilience can contribute to an IS Rating where the applicable credits require project teams to identify future climate risks, assess their potential consequences and demonstrate how appropriate responses have been incorporated into the project. The scope and evidence depend on the asset type, project stage, location and selected rating strategy.
Relevant inputs may address exposure to heat, flooding, bushfire, coastal conditions, severe weather, material degradation or service disruption. These technical studies remain specialist project inputs, while the IS Rating process connects their findings to credit requirements, design decisions, responsibilities and verification evidence.
Early coordination is important because resilience responses may influence option selection, design criteria, procurement requirements, asset management planning and future adaptation measures. An IS Rating pathway helps keep these decisions visible and traceable as the project moves through delivery and into operation.
Project teams may need to document relevant climate hazards, exposure, vulnerability, consequences and the evidence used to support the selected risk response.
Relevant credit responses may show how identified risks have influenced design criteria, infrastructure systems, materials, levels, drainage or other project decisions.
Evidence may consider how essential infrastructure functions will be maintained, restored or adapted when disruptive conditions affect the asset or its users.
Long-term responses may include monitoring, maintenance, staged adaptation, responsibility allocation and review triggers that support future asset resilience.
Water, Materials and Waste Credits
Water, materials and waste can contribute to several credit responses within an IS Rating pathway. The relevant requirements depend on the project scope, asset type, rating stage and selected credit strategy, with project teams expected to demonstrate how resource-related objectives have informed planning, design, procurement, construction and operation.
Supporting evidence may include water balances, stormwater documentation, material schedules, sourcing records, waste management plans, procurement data and construction records. These remain specialist technical and delivery inputs, while the IS Rating process connects them to defined credits, responsibilities and verification requirements.
Early coordination is important because many water, material and waste outcomes are shaped before construction begins. Establishing the applicable credits and evidence requirements early helps project teams retain the information needed to demonstrate that intended improvements were incorporated into design decisions, procurement processes and completed works.
Water, material and waste evidence is commonly distributed across civil, landscape, design, procurement and construction teams. Without a coordinated credit strategy, important assumptions, calculations or records may not be captured in a form suitable for rating verification.
An IS Rating pathway helps connect these separate workstreams to common credit requirements, project milestones, evidence responsibilities and submission outcomes.
Relevant credit responses may rely on documented baselines, demand reduction measures, reuse strategies, stormwater outcomes and evidence that project commitments have been implemented.
Material-related credits may require schedules, product information, sourcing records, comparative studies and documentation of responsible procurement or reduced material impacts.
Waste-related credit responses may use management plans, contractor records, diversion data and documented processes to demonstrate how construction waste outcomes were achieved.
Credit coordination helps align baselines, targets, technical inputs, procurement obligations and construction evidence across the wider project team.
Water, materials and waste credits may draw on civil design, stormwater and WSUD documentation, landscape inputs, material studies, procurement records and construction data. The IS Rating process does not replace those specialist workstreams. It organises their outputs within a defined credit, evidence and verification framework.
Governance, Procurement and Assurance
An IS Rating depends on more than technical studies or individual design initiatives. Governance, procurement and assurance determine how rating objectives, credit responsibilities, evidence requirements and review processes are embedded across a major infrastructure project.
A project may establish a strong sustainability strategy during planning, but the intended rating outcome must then be translated into consultant scopes, design deliverables, procurement documents, contractor obligations, construction records and handover information. Without clear ownership, important credit requirements can become fragmented as the project moves between teams and delivery stages.
For this reason, an IS Rating pathway commonly requires structured responsibility mapping, evidence management and documentation control. These processes help demonstrate not only what the project intended to achieve, but how rating commitments were incorporated into decisions, contracts and completed project outcomes.
Evidence for an IS Rating is often generated across clients, project managers, designers, technical specialists, contractors, suppliers and asset operators. Each party may control only part of the information needed to support a credit claim.
When evidence requirements and review points are established early, the project can capture decisions, approvals and implementation records as the work progresses rather than attempting to recreate them near submission.
Governance establishes the target rating, decision authorities, credit owners, review processes and escalation pathways used to manage the rating strategy.
Procurement documentation can transfer relevant credit obligations, supplier information requirements and evidence responsibilities into contracts and delivery packages.
Registers, reports, specifications, approvals, calculations, procurement records and construction data must be organised against the applicable credit requirements.
Review and assurance processes help confirm that credit claims are complete, traceable and supported by evidence suitable for independent verification.
When governance and evidence systems are introduced late, the project may discover that responsibilities were never assigned, procurement clauses were omitted, decisions were not recorded or completed work cannot be adequately verified. Early coordination reduces these gaps and gives each project participant a clearer role in delivering the intended IS Rating outcome.
Related Sustainability Frameworks
The IS Rating Scheme is designed for infrastructure sustainability assessment. Other frameworks may apply to buildings, precincts, operational performance, development approvals or specialist environmental workstreams within the same broader project. Their requirements can intersect, but they do not assess identical assets, stages or outcomes.
Green Star may apply to eligible building or precinct components, while NABERS assesses measured operational performance for particular building and asset types. WSUD documentation addresses water-sensitive design and stormwater outcomes, while Sustainability Management Plans and Sustainable Design Assessments commonly respond to planning-stage development requirements.
Understanding these boundaries helps project teams assign each asset component and sustainability obligation to the appropriate pathway. The objective is not to place every requirement under one framework, but to establish where each framework applies, what evidence it requires and how its outputs connect to the wider project strategy.
Provides a structured assessment and verification pathway for infrastructure projects and assets, including relevant sustainability credits, delivery processes, evidence requirements and lifecycle outcomes.
May apply to eligible building, fitout, precinct or community components. It can operate alongside an IS Rating where a wider project contains both infrastructure works and separately assessed built-environment elements.
Measures operational performance for eligible buildings and assets. It may become relevant where an infrastructure project includes operational facilities that sit within a separate NABERS assessment boundary.
These pathways generally respond to specialist water-management or planning requirements. Their reports may provide project inputs without replacing the broader credit, evidence and verification structure of an IS Rating.
On complex projects, early mapping identifies which framework applies to each asset, development component, project stage and evidence stream.
This is particularly important for transport precincts, civic projects, mixed-use developments and major masterplanned sites. Infrastructure works may follow an IS Rating pathway, while buildings, operational facilities, planning submissions and water-management packages remain subject to their own defined requirements.
A clear framework map reduces duplicated work, prevents gaps between consultant scopes and establishes how separate reports and assessment pathways contribute to one coordinated project delivery strategy.
IS Rating Team Coordination
An IS Rating is usually delivered through the combined work of many project participants. Credit responses may depend on inputs from clients, project managers, designers, engineers, environmental specialists, procurement teams, contractors, suppliers and asset operators. The rating coordinator brings these separate contributions into one organised submission pathway.
Effective coordination identifies which credits affect each discipline, what information must be produced and when evidence needs to be reviewed. This is particularly important on projects delivered through multiple work packages, staged design releases or changing consultant and contractor teams.
The objective is not to make every participant responsible for the full rating. It is to give each credit and evidence requirement a clear owner, connect related technical inputs and maintain continuity as the project moves from strategy through design, procurement, construction and handover.
Most IS Rating evidence is produced within ordinary project activities, including design reports, calculations, specifications, workshops, procurement records and construction documentation. Coordination ensures those outputs are aligned with the applicable credit requirements.
This makes rating coordination an interface between the project’s technical disciplines and the wider credit, evidence and verification process rather than a substitute for specialist design or assessment work.
Each targeted credit needs a nominated owner who understands the required actions, deliverables, dependencies and submission evidence.
Rating claims may rely on connected outputs from reports, models, drawings, specifications, approvals, supplier data and site records held by different teams.
Related credit responses often require coordinated decisions between civil, structural, services, landscape, environmental, procurement and construction teams.
Credit obligations and unresolved actions must be transferred clearly between planning, design, procurement, construction, handover and asset operation.
An IS Rating pathway is easier to manage when credit owners understand their responsibilities, connected disciplines know where their inputs intersect and evidence is reviewed before key project stages close. Consistent coordination protects viable credit opportunities and reduces gaps during submission and verification.
Future Infrastructure Performance
Infrastructure sustainability is becoming more integrated, measurable and lifecycle-focused. Major projects are increasingly expected to demonstrate how they respond to carbon reduction, climate resilience, resource efficiency, community value, procurement accountability and long-term operational performance.
ISCA and infrastructure sustainability ratings sit within this wider shift. They help project teams move beyond isolated environmental initiatives and toward a more structured understanding of how infrastructure performs across planning, design, construction and operation. This is especially important for assets that will shape communities, transport systems, water networks, civic places and public services for decades.
The future of sustainable infrastructure is likely to depend on better coordination between rating systems, technical performance, governance, evidence, procurement and asset management. For project teams, this means sustainability needs to be visible early, carried carefully through delivery, and maintained as part of the asset’s long-term value.
Infrastructure sustainability is moving from isolated compliance tasks toward measurable performance across carbon, resilience, resources, water, materials and operation.
Sustainable infrastructure needs to perform beyond practical completion, with decisions made during planning and design carried into operation, maintenance and adaptation.
Rating pathways place greater emphasis on documented decisions, verifiable outcomes, responsible procurement and sustainability commitments that can be demonstrated.
ISCA does not sit alone. It belongs within a broader project ecosystem that may include Green Star, NABERS, WSUD, SMPs, SDAs, carbon analysis, climate resilience planning and operational performance strategy.
For Certified Energy’s future knowledge system, ISCA can act as the infrastructure sustainability layer. It connects major project delivery with the wider built-environment performance themes already shaping buildings, precincts, public assets and operational portfolios.
This creates a clearer pathway for project teams who need to understand not only whether a rating applies, but how infrastructure sustainability connects with planning, environmental performance, procurement, technical reporting and long-term asset outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
ISCA stands for the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia, the former name of the organisation now known as the Infrastructure Sustainability Council, or ISC. The term ISCA is still commonly used by project teams when discussing the IS Rating Scheme and infrastructure sustainability requirements.
An IS Rating is a recognised assessment and verification pathway for infrastructure projects, assets and programs. It evaluates applicable sustainability credits and the evidence used to demonstrate how environmental, social, governance and economic outcomes have been addressed through project delivery.
An IS Rating may be required by a government agency, infrastructure owner, funding agreement, procurement framework, tender document or project brief. It may also be pursued voluntarily where an asset owner wants a structured and independently verified infrastructure sustainability pathway.
IS Ratings may apply to transport, rail, road, water, utility, civil, public realm, precinct and other major infrastructure projects or assets. The appropriate pathway depends on the asset type, project stage, assessment boundary, client requirements and intended rating outcome.
No. The IS Rating Scheme is designed for infrastructure projects and assets, while Green Star generally applies to eligible buildings, fitouts, communities and precincts. Both frameworks may be used on a complex project where infrastructure works and separately assessed building or precinct components sit within different assessment boundaries.
An IS Rating may include credits relating to carbon, energy, materials, resources, water, waste and climate resilience. The applicable requirements depend on the selected rating pathway, project scope, tool version and credit strategy. Specialist assessments may be needed to provide the technical evidence supporting particular credit claims.
An IS Rating should be considered early because many credit opportunities are influenced by planning, design, procurement and contractual decisions. Early coordination allows responsibilities, deliverables and evidence requirements to be established before important project options or work packages are finalised.
IS Rating evidence is usually produced across the wider project team. Clients, project managers, sustainability consultants, designers, engineers, contractors, procurement teams, suppliers and asset operators may each hold information needed for particular credits. Clear credit ownership and responsibility mapping help keep this evidence complete and traceable.
Yes. Although IS Ratings are widely associated with public infrastructure and government procurement, they may also be used for eligible private infrastructure, utilities, precinct works, major civil projects and privately owned assets seeking formal sustainability assessment and verification.
Certified Energy can support project teams in clarifying the applicable IS Rating pathway, coordinating credit responsibilities, identifying technical evidence requirements and connecting specialist project inputs to the wider rating and submission process.
Related Knowledge References
An IS Rating pathway often sits alongside other sustainability, planning and building performance frameworks. Each serves a different purpose, applies to different project components and has its own assessment methodology, evidence requirements and technical specialists.
The following Knowledge Hubs explore those related disciplines in greater detail. Together they help explain how infrastructure sustainability connects with buildings, operational performance, planning, environmental design and technical assessment while maintaining clear boundaries between each specialist pathway.
Explore how Green Star supports sustainable building, precinct and community outcomes that may sit beside infrastructure sustainability requirements.
Understand how measured operational performance can inform energy, water, waste and indoor environment strategy for eligible buildings and assets.
Learn how water-sensitive urban design addresses stormwater management, treatment, landscape integration and receiving-water outcomes.
See how Sustainability Management Plans and Sustainable Design Assessments respond to planning-stage environmental performance requirements.
Understand the commercial building energy efficiency provisions used to demonstrate National Construction Code compliance.
Explore how specialist modelling evaluates indoor comfort conditions and informs climate-responsive building design decisions.
Major infrastructure projects often involve several complementary assessment pathways rather than a single sustainability framework. Understanding where the IS Rating Scheme begins and where related building, planning and technical assessment frameworks apply helps reduce duplicated work, clarify consultant responsibilities and strengthen project-wide sustainability outcomes.
Project Review
Share your available project brief, infrastructure scope, sustainability objectives and procurement requirements for an initial review. Certified Energy can help identify the most appropriate IS Rating pathway, clarify credit responsibilities and establish the evidence needed throughout planning, design, procurement, construction and project delivery.
Where other specialist frameworks or technical assessments are required, we can help coordinate how they contribute to the wider infrastructure sustainability strategy while maintaining clear responsibilities across the project team.
Last reviewed: July 2026. This page is maintained by Certified Energy as part of its Infrastructure Sustainability Knowledge Hub, supporting IS Rating guidance, project teams and major infrastructure delivery.
