A tripartite framework for exploring green building rating system divergence: a multi-assessment of two residential cases in Morocco

Purpose The increasing adoption of Green Building Rating Systems (GBRSs) has introduced significant methodological diversity into sustainability assessments, raising concerns about the comparability and robustness of evaluation outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the environmental dimensions of the Moroccan Building Sustainability Assessment Framework (MBSAF(Env)) and examine its methodological positioning relative to established international systems, namely, the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and High Environmental Quality (HQE). Design/methodology/approach A comparative multi-assessment approach was employed, applying the MBSAF(Env) and three international GBRSs (BREEAM, LEED and HQE) to two residential buildings. The analysis focused on cross-system variations at both category and overall rating levels, with particular attention paid to scoring mechanisms, normative references, and calculation procedures. Findings The results revealed substantial variability across systems. An inter-project performance gap of up to 52 percentage points was observed, whereas cross-system differences exceeded 100 percentage points in categories such as water and waste. In contrast, the energy performance exhibited relative convergence, with variations limited to approximately three percentage points. The analysis further highlights the influence of penalty-based scoring mechanisms, with negative contributions observed in the MBSAF(Env) (down to −1.15%). These findings demonstrate that assessment outcomes are not solely determined by building performance but are strongly influenced by the structural configuration of the evaluation methodologies. Originality/value This study proposes a tripartite analytical framework based on scoring architecture, normative anchoring, and methodological institutionalization to support the interpretation of variability across GBRSs. It provides novel empirical and conceptual insights into the interactions between local and international frameworks and challenges the validity of direct cross-system comparisons.