Two final considerations must be raised. First is the possibility of expanding building assessment systems to include social criteria of sustainability. Because commercial development is dominated by the corporate sector, such criteria have been slow to intrude into the predominantly technical mindset of building assessment. But there have been pressures to expand the realm of values to larger contextual and ethical issues (J. A. Todd et al., 2001; Wooley, 2000; Wooley & Fox, 2000). These include questions of ownership vs. stewardship; of bioregional economics vs. globalization; of economic growth vs. sufficiency; of banning whole classes of toxic materials like PVC; and the role of buildings in shaping public space. A somewhat related consideration is the sufficiency of the market transformation approach that has predominated in Britain and North America. BREEAM and LEED are essentially voluntary systems that presume existing markets can be transformed (Cole, 1999), or perhaps more accurately, dont need to be transformed too much in order for information to have a substantial environmental effect. The next few years should give some indication as to whether and to what degree this is true. My personal view is that, while the existing systems leave much to be desired, there will soon likely be pressure from corporate circles to level the playing field for their newlyacquired expertise in green building. Regulatory action can affect markets, but market transformation can also create regulatory pressure.