The economic development of countries is closely linked to the performance of the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. Its contributions to the social growth of societies are tangible (Hatamleh et al., 2021; Idrissi Gartoumi et al., 2023a). This sector has taken the path of renovation by integrating the requirements of the 4th industrial revolution, which has brought new tools and approaches that have advanced this industry (Chen Y. et al., 2022). On another note, it is known for its high consumption of water (Carvalho et al., 2019), natural resources, energy (Invidiata and Ghisi, 2016; Pacheco et al., 2012), and the generation of solid waste that infects the environment (Yeheyis et al., 2013; Li et al., 2021). This expenditure is not limited solely to waste construction materials left over from the act of building but also the quantities estimated in the design and engineering phase and not carried out due to lack of costing or failure to collaborate between stakeholders (Idrissi Gartoumi et al., 2022). The negative repercussions of CO₂ place the AEC industry at the top of the list of polluting industries and contributors to global warming (Feng et al., 2022a; Wong and Kuan, 2014; Wong and Zhou, 2015). With this in mind, the AEC industry is under intense pressure to reduce levels of polluting emissions (Mattoni et al., 2018). Construction professionals know the need to switch to ecological construction methods to minimize environmental impact, save building materials and earth resources, guarantee the health and comfort of occupants (Illankoon et al., 2017; Yılmaz and Bakış, 2015), and make the built environment more sustainable and resilient to achieve more Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Opoku et al., 2024; Umar et al., 2024).

To overcome these barriers and enhance environmental performance, the AEC industry has concentrated on pivotal factors, particularly ambitious technological solutions (Bernardi et al., 2017; Wong and Zhou, 2015). This involves leveraging various tools, with Building Information Modeling (BIM) standing out as a prominent example (Pereira et al., 2021; Umar, 2021). BIM pilots the technologies recently integrated into the construction industry and are the most impactful technological development in the construction sector (Olawumi and Chan, 2018; Romano and Riediger, 2020). It is a new way of managing the construction life cycle from design to demolition (Wang and Chen, 2023). Essentially, BIM enables better modeling, estimation of construction material quantities, adjustment, and resolution of design faults and problems, evaluation of thermal comfort models, visualization of renderings, assessment of energy requirements, and facilitation of energy certification processes (Baarimah et al., 2021; Er-retby et al., 2022; Khalil et al., 2021; Ogunrinde et al., 2020; Osuizugbo, 2023; Wu and Issa, 2012).

Another crucial factor in addressing environmental concerns involves the adoption of energy transition frameworks (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2022; Cascone, 2023). Globally, numerous countries have developed building energy assessment systems and thermal regulations (Alyami and Rezgui, 2012; Lee, 2013). These systems aim to improve buildings’ sustainability and life-cycle performance and mitigate their environmental impact (Illankoon et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017). Ecological initiatives to solve energy consumption problems go a long way (Sun and Park, 2020). The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 catalyzed the formulation of framework agreements aimed at combating global warming (Azhar et al., 2011; Rosenqvist et al., 2003).

Under the Protocol, several countries have committed themselves, and other decrees describing energy efficiency targets have been established that must comply with the Kyoto Protocol or “20-20-20” (Laski and Burrows, 2017; Zuo and Zhao, 2014). For example, LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) is one of the most widely recognized and deployed systems for designing, constructing, and operating green buildings. Originating in the United States, LEED, like other energy certification protocols, provides the criteria needed to evaluate, measure, and build ecologically and sustainably (Altomonte and Schiavon, 2013; Kang, 2020; Potbhare et al., 2009; Ur Rehman et al., 2022). BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD (BREEAM) is another example of certification first used in the UK and now launched for use internationally in 2016 (Alyami and Rezgui, 2012; Chen et al., 2015; Lee, 2013; Pauža, 2023). In Japan, the COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY (CASBEE) was developed in 2001. The CASBEE system evaluates and certifies the environmental performance of various types of projects in Japan based on life cycle assessment (Alasmari et al., 2022; Haapio, 2012; Seyis, 2022). In addition, others are joining the Green Building Certifications (GBCs), such as the GERMAN SUSTAINABLE BUILDING COUNCIL (DGNB) (Bahale and Schuetze, 2023), Green Star NZ (Abdelaal et al., 2022), Australian Green Star (Doan et al., 2021), and GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (GSAS), and ESTIDAMA developed for Gulf countries (Azzam et al., 2022; Lei and Cui, 2022).

The linkage between BIM and GBCs creates a real opportunity to support the environmental and ecological transformation of the AEC industry (Ryu and Park, 2016; Wong and Zhou, 2015). Implementing BIM facilitates compliance with GBCs regulatory requirements by integrating the necessary information throughout the building’s life cycle (Mohanta et al., 2021; Žurić et al., 2022). This information from energy regulations is analyzed and simulated before the project is delivered (Motalebi et al., 2022). In a significant portion of the literature, green buildings, characterized as the ecological counterpart of GBC-based buildings, have been summarized and analyzed (Cao et al., 2022; Chen L. et al., 2022; Meena et al., 2022; Olanrewaju et al., 2022a). On another register, studies analyze the different links between these certifications and others on the viability of using BIM in conjunction with some certificates and mainly LEED (Ariono et al., 2022; Caldas et al., 2022; Nairne Schamne et al., 2021).

BIM linked to GBCs has only been the subject of a few literature reviews. In the context of the relationship between parametric design and sustainable development (Cascone, 2023), reviews the state-of-the-art different methods of integrating LEED and BIM at the early design stage. This recently published paper recommends that future research should include the other certificates. Their studies (Alves Tenório de Morais et al., 2023), focus on the integration of the REVIT tool as BIM software can make GBCs processes more agile and standardized. In addition, BIM can address the complexities of building structures to correctly apply to build life cycle assessment and ensure better environmental performance of a building (Feng et al., 2022b). In terms of linkage, on the one hand (Mohammad et al., 2020), detail the applications of BIM from the point of view of contractors in Malaysia whose use is found with LEED certification. On the other hand (Sanhudo and Martins, 2018), establish a link between BIM and LEED via an application for stormwater credits for all types of buildings.

At this stage, it appears that previous work has either explored the concept of BIM as a tool for the effective deployment of GBCs or has established practical integration of BIM with LEED certification. However, these previous works have mainly focused on analyses limited to LEED certification without having a deeper, broader understanding of the research domain and including other certification schemes. In addition, many of these analyses have considered BIM-GBC studies, without focusing on a particular aspect or using a bibliometric approach to the analysis of a large dataset. Besides the insufficiency of discussion about automation in green certification applications and few studies of integrating advanced technologies like BIM.

To this end, there is a lack of knowledge about the applicability and use of BIM with the energy certifications most cited in the literature. There is therefore a need for a bibliometric literature review, to understand and organize all information relating to the application of BIM and current energy efficiency processes through BIM, including remaining limitations and feasible future improvements.

Furthermore, with the remarkable growth in the adoption of BIM, and the particular attention reserved by recently published studies to the subjects of energy certification with BIM, there is a need for a system that maps the existing and shows the strong links between BIM and all types of GBCs in all countries of the world and the context of use.

In the absence of a bibliometric analysis of the literature to our knowledge, this document is proposed as a preliminary work to map existing research through a scientometric analysis and to provide useful information on existing and future research to guide the scientific community and professionals in this context on how to proceed in the future. To extend the discussion on all common aspects of the application of BIM with the different certifications, the specific objectives are guided by the following research questions:

RQ 1: What certifications have been adopted with advanced technologies like BIM?

This article is essential for professionals and researchers as it helps to improve sustainability requirements and facilitates the adoption of energy certification. It is presented in 4 sections. After the first introductory section, the methodology is detailed in Section 2. The third section presents the main results of the bibliometric and scientometric analysis and, before concluding in Section 4, discusses and draws the main conclusions.

To address research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3, the bibliographic literature underwent analysis using bibliometric techniques. This method is employed to identify and map areas of knowledge by discerning research models. Widely utilized, bibliometrics has proven effective in detecting emerging research areas and technologies within the AEC industry (Wang et al., 2023). This analysis had a dual step. Firstly, visualize the extent and present the qualitative parameters of the data collected to understand the key aspects of research on the link between BIM and GBCs. Secondly, bring out the research map of themes. Via a rigorous exploration of the text and content of articles.

A rigorous content analysis of the selected articles allows us to summarize previous contributions. Then study current and future integration and present recommendations for successfully linking BIM and GBCs and ensuring energy efficiency. Figure 1 illustrates the research method, focusing on the quantitative results obtained.

This section initially focuses on examining various bibliometric characteristics of the subject based on the gathered articles. Subsequently, it organizes and classifies the integration of GBCs with BIM in the AEC industry.

In response to concerns about the negative impact of the AEC industry on the environment, research into the regulation of building consumption has been carried out via a collaborative application of BIM with energy certifications. According to the table, 4 certifications deal with this subject. LEED certification is ranked first with 32 occurrences, followed by BREEAM in second place.

These certifications also reflect the extent to which countries have embraced BIM. On this subject, many studies have emphasized the differences between countries in the implementation of strategies to promote BIM. Like BIM, the emergence of energy certification is also linked to regional disparities and the presence of regulatory policies. In this sense, countries with green strategies are the first to implement energy certificates, explaining the dominance of LEED and BREEAM.

Both certificates, as pioneers, have focused on environmental sustainability, thus these authors are working on an improvement of social (Olakitan Atanda, 2019; Stender and Walter, 2019) and economic (Seinre et al., 2014). On the contrary, the NABERS and ZEB certifications are present with only 2 occurrences.

This paper furnishes a contemporary and comprehensive perspective on the digitization of green building certification facilitated by the deployment of Building Information Modeling (BIM). The study delves into the interactions catalyzed by BIM in the context of energy certifications, specifically focusing on instances where less than one energy certification is involved. Motivated by various considerations and obligations, the bibliometric literature review successfully identified four certifications central to discussions on credit automation through BIM. As of the end of 2024, LEED and BREEAM certifications have emerged as predominant players, taking the lead in discussions and occupying prominent positions within the framework established with BIM for the creation of green buildings. The study is part of a worldwide effort to automate the deployment of energy certification. It highlighted the growth of this subject and identified the development needed to overcome energy challenges.

The structuring of updated knowledge arising from the results found can be presented in three blocks of knowledge: knowledge domains, knowledge evolution, and knowledge capitalization. This last block summarizes the solutions that need to be adopted alongside BIM for better application and realization of energy certification credits. These solutions are largely technological solutions resulting from the technological revolution. Through analysis of occurrences and previous studies, BIM can be armed with other technologies such as blockchain and IoT. Exploring these two technological tools requires a scientific effort.

Researchers and practitioners can deepen energy certification practices and measures by extending the scope of BIM and deepening its application across the entire lifecycle of construction. In addition, think about frameworks that include IoT and Blockchain with BIM to ensure systematic automation and inclusion of energy certification. The benefits of this study can be exploited even at the level of the choice of certification, especially in countries considering the creation of thermal regulations, and it offers a clear view of the tangible prospects and the quick wins to be implemented.

The bibliometric results highlight a worldwide classification of this subject. The first category comprises countries that have already started designing and building with one of the energy certifications. The second is at the stage of thinking about or researching the local adaptation of an energy certification. The study shows that developed countries are paying particular attention to this issue. In this respect, developing countries could take this paper as a preliminary study to create local standards and adopt technology to facilitate the application of energy certification.

In this study, we have delved into numerous opportunities, perspectives, and challenges inherent in the application of GBCs within the framework of projects developed using BIM. Our aim is that this exploration proves valuable and comprehensive, providing researchers with insights to digitize the BIM application process and harness the benefits of modeling and monitoring through BIM. Having synthesized the findings and identified current research gaps in this domain, we offer the following recommendations:

- Put BIM at the center of the digitization of credits standardized by energy certificates.

The study was based on solid scientific studies from indexed journals, including recent papers. Results allow stakeholders a better visibility of the relationship between BIM and GBCs. Considering this study, the academic community must explore more advanced technologies and relationships with GBCs. For the stakeholders and professional community BIM 6D constitutes the first action to align construction with energy certification measures. Then developing other workflow based on BIM, IoT, and Blockchain enhances the efficiency of GBCs implementation.

However, only two databases were consulted to gain a better understanding of the subject. Furthermore, being limited to a literature review, this study does not consider a practitioner’s perception or an in-depth examination of a successful country. Other limitations are related to the fact that we only considered articles published in English and that we ignored other languages such as French where French-speaking countries publish locally their efforts in terms of environmental certification.

To strengthen the analysis, it is recommended that an in-depth comparison of the criteria used by various certification systems be conducted to better highlight their unique features and implications. By incorporating references such as the Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG), it would be possible to establish a workflow with BIM, assess the outputs of digital mock-ups from the perspective of each certification, and identify differences in calculation methods and rating systems. This would enhance the recommendations for professionals and create a robust decision-making platform. Therefore, this comparative approach could serve as a focal point for future work.