Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

This proposal was not advanced to the Finalist round.

We found the idea to be very appealing and with large potential for impact. Additionally, the target country (India) a logical place to undertake this project. We found the proposal to be thorough, well articulated and clear.

Our chief concern with this approach is that real estate firms will select the tool that makes each building appear best for the local real estate market, i.e., to maximize asset value instead of helping to push toward sustainability. Thus, we were skeptical that this would significantly help to achieve the objectives of this contest.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

This addresses a niche in the global interest in improved transparency of building efficiency quality. I believe it is needed and useful as a concept (not sure if anything like it exists). The proposal has weaknesses it should address before moving forward - Mechanical: spelling errors (managers and go-live), very unclear wording (ie "device" "object"). Clarity: It doesn't explain "benefits". It suggests binary (yes/no) on certain parameters but doesn't suggest what they are. And what about non-binary? Such as impact on rental market value, regulatory (some US cities give permitting priority to LEED Gold or higher), prestige value in specific communities. Awareness:While the proposal offers a Germany/EU start, it suggests spreading to US but doesn't show any US familiarity.

Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.