From Rating System to Thought Leadership: The Evolution of the Canada Green Building Council
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Green Building Social Movement Organizations encourage the adoption of green buildings, primarily by promoting sustainability rating tools. While numerous papers have explored the market impact of these sustainability rating tools, very few have examined either the lengthy and protracted process of their selection and enrollment by organizations, or even their impact upon the structure and governance of organizations. This paper fills these gaps by presenting a 20‐year case study of organizational evolution. It identifies five distinct periods through which the chosen organization variously selected, developed, established, lost control, and transcended its relationship with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; a ‘green building’ rating tool) in Canada. Conceptually, our analysis has roots within the Sociology of Translation and (Scandinavian) Institutional Theory. In this, we treat the technical mediation of sustainability rating tools as institutional work activities to understand their role(s) in organizational evolution. The empirical basis for our analysis is data acquired through 21 semi‐structured interviews with organization founders and key personnel in each period, as well as a comprehensive analysis of archival records. Our findings offer significant insights for organizations that have bound themselves to a tool, certification, or standard as their means of market or societal transformation. We close by recognizing our study's limitations before underlining the crucial managerial and policy consequences of our analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".