The Infrastructure Sustainability Council (ISC) is giving its flagship Design and As Built Rating Tool a major tune-up.
The Infrastructure Sustainability Council (ISC)’s rating tool Version 2.2, due to go on display in August 2025, reflects an ambition to make the tool simpler, smarter, and better aligned with the practical realities of delivering infrastructure in Australia. The IS Design and As Built Rating Tool is a nationally recognised framework used to assess and benchmark the sustainability performance of major infrastructure projects across their design and construction phases.
For ISC CEO Toby Kent, the changes are overdue.
“Looking back a few years, we were being told by the industry that version 1.2 was getting too easy to achieve. It had ceased to really drive the industry,” he said.
That situation, which reflected a positive movement in enhanced sustainability performance across the sector, led to the development of v2.1, designed to further lift performance standards. However, this introduced new issues.
“We found that while [v2.1] was meeting its intent, it also brought an increasing amount of administrative burden,” Kent said.
“Unintended consequences of trying to tighten the procedures.”
The result was a growing list of “must” statements, complex documentation, and increased reliance on consultants, with associated costs.
For many project teams, sustainability ratings were becoming a chore. Version 2.2 aims to shift that trajectory.
Smoothing the edges
Changes for v2.2 are what Kent describes as “knocking off the edges to reduce the friction around applying the tool.”
More than 100 mandatory ‘must’ statements have been removed, documentation has been streamlined, and guidance is clearer.
Importantly, the ISC insists it’s not backing away from rigour.
“We are maintaining the rigour of sustainability performance, while enabling adoption of the tool to be that much easier,” Kent said.
The changes are also about reducing cost of adoption, particularly the indirect costs of time and additional resources some felt were needed to meet the old criteria. These are central considerations for any project.
The revised tool, Kent said, is designed to make the application “as affordable as possible, while supporting projects to meet increasing regulatory demands for transparency and mandated reporting.”
A scalpel, not a sledgehammer
For those already familiar with v2.1, the shift to 2.2 should feel like a natural progression.
“We’ve been really careful not to just throw everything out,” Kent said.
“The changes in and of themselves are quite measured. But in aggregate they are actually going to be really profound.”
Part of the uplift includes new scalability for different sized projects. Mid-sized projects – those between $100 million and $500 million – will now be able to use a tailored credit set, with up to 30 per cent fewer requirements.
This approach was informed by lessons from ISC’s Essentials Rating Tool, which is designed for smaller projects in the $5 million to $100 million range.
“Projects of that size will be able to apply a scaling model,” Kent explained, “so they might be doing up to about 30 per cent fewer credits than in the past.”
It is a step towards broadening the appeal of IS ratings, particularly for sectors beyond transport and mega-projects.
“That would be the third driver,” Kent said, referring to v2.2’s goals: “Ease of take-up, affordability, and expanding adoption across sectors.”
Verification reimagined
The rating tool is not the only element under revision.
The independent verification model that underpins ISC ratings has also had a rethink, especially in response to long-standing concerns around feedback consistency and timing.
The current two-verifier model is being replaced with a streamlined system: one external verifier, supported by a newly established internal quality control function.
This in-house team will not verify projects directly, but will review all verification decisions to ensure they align with ISC’s technical manual and are consistent across the board.
“The in-house function is not a verification function, per se,” Kent clarified.
“The independent element is conducted by the independent verifier. The in-house role is to ensure that verification is consistent, so that the ultimate verification outcome doesn’t vary by provider.”
For project teams, that means clearer expectations and fewer surprises.
“We became aware that a number of developers or constructors were rather over-investing because they weren’t sure what the verification outcome was going to be,” Kent said.
“This is going to make for much clearer and predictable outcomes.”
The Council piloted the new model through Essentials tool, as well as running a shadow process to further validate the proposed changes. The results confirmed discrepancies in verifier decisions and supported the move to a more controlled, consistent process.
ISO alignment and risk lens
Another major shift in v2.2 is the tool’s alignment with ISO 31000, the international standard for risk management.
“There’s a direct alignment between what many of our users would be using for other parts of managing their business,” Kent said.
“So having alignment between those two specifically is really important and helpful.”
The benefits are practical.
“If organisations are familiar with ISO 31000, why wouldn’t we try to make sure there’s alignment? It reduces confusion. It makes it easier for our project managers to provide consistent feedback. It also probably means they get asked for slightly less clarification,” Kent said.
Beyond ISO, ISC is working to ensure v2.2 plays nicely with a range of both national and international frameworks.
Clearing bottlenecks
Another pain point ISC aims to solve is verification delays, which are sometimes triggered when projects finish a phase and suddenly require rating sign-off, only to find that two independent verifiers are not immediately available.
With the new model, ISC’s internal team will be on standby.
“So long as we are given just a few weeks’ notice our team will be on hand,” Kent said.
Turnaround times are being monitored as well.
While exact figures remain to be seen, Kent suggested that there is likely to be “a material reduction in the amount of information gathering and administration as a result of the 2.2 amendments and the verification changes.”
Culture shift and collaborative spirit
Throughout the v2.2 redesign, ISC put stakeholder feedback at the centre. More than 70 per cent of feasible suggestions were adopted into the new version.
Kent was struck by the tone of the engagement.
“For an industry that sometimes is represented in the media as a little bit coarse, the respect and genuine collegiality is really impressive,” he said.
“It’s quite a nice surprise.”
Another lesson was on the importance of closing the loop.
“We always felt that we were constantly communicating [but] people didn’t necessarily feel that we were,” Kent said.
“So this time, we’ve been confirming what we’ve heard, and hopefully bringing people slightly better along the journey.”
Transition ready
Support for the shift to v2.2 will include updated training materials, revised Infrastructure Sustainability Accredited Professional (ISAP) curriculum, transition guides, webinars, and hands-on help from ISC project managers.
The aim is to ensure that users of the existing 2.1 tool can switch mid-project if they choose.
“We’re really, really careful about ensuring that they can do that,” Kent said.
“There’s no material change in performance expectation so they can just transition straight across.”
For those still on the fence, Kent keeps it simple.
“IS ratings have been shown over time to improve sustainability performance,” he said.
“We’re now better able to show cost savings where a rating is applied versus where it isn’t.”
ISC’s overhaul is as much about shifting culture as shifting criteria.
With v2.2, the Council is attempting to lower the bureaucratic barrier while raising confidence in the rating’s relevance and impact for a sector under pressure to deliver.
