Shaping Envision v4: Insights, Data, and Collaboration are Driving the Evolution

In 2025, ISI in collaboration with the Envision Review Board (ERB), launched a comprehensive process to refine and enhance the Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Framework. Aiming to publish an updated version in 2028, Envision v4 is being shaped to respond to evolving user needs and feedback, while preserving the core strengths that make Envision a trusted decision-making framework worldwide. The focus of this update is targeted refinement to address challenges experienced in v3, clarify credit language and processes, and expand global applicability. 

2025: Listening, Learning, and Analyzing 

Throughout 2025, ISI conducted an extensive data collection phase to better understand how Envision is being used in practice and where improvements would be most impactful. Input was gathered through multiple channels to ensure diverse perspectives were represented. 

User Feedback and Engagement 

Feedback was collected through a comprehensive Envision user survey promoted via ISI’s website and social media channels. The resulting feedback from 100 unique responders included several hundred individualcomments. Participants shared insights on what aspects of the framework are most valuable, where improvements are needed, and which topic areas may be missing. Responses covered technical issues, terminology, clarifications, typos, challenging or underused credits, sector- and geography-specific considerations, and areas of confusion. 

In addition, ISI hosted focused listening sessions with engaged user groups, including Envision trainers, verifiers, the Envision & Airports Forum, the Envision Maritime Forum, and ENV SP communities in Canada, Italy, and Latin America, as well as a general public listening session following the ISI Virtual Conference in October 2025. These conversations provided context and highlighted practical experiences with Envision. Additionalperspectives were contributed by ERB members and ISI staff, along with comparative reviews of other rating systems.  

Analysis of Feedback 

An overall review of the feedback and analysis of comments synthesized trends, aligned ideas, and brought out emerging priorities.  

The overarching message from users was clear: Envision is conceptually sound and highly valued. Participants expressed strong support for Envision’s purpose, structure, and usability. There were no calls to rename, remove, or add categories, and there was broad endorsement to retain v3 credit numbering and the existing award structure. In short, the community asked for refinement—not redesign. 

Comments included those about implementation and the framework as a whole, but focused primarily on credit-specific feedback. For data analysis purposes, comments were also broken down by type, such as editorial, technical, or conceptual as shown in the graph below. The ‘“No Comment” noted’ type refers to instances where the responder typed “no comment” into the survey. This was notable because the survey was extensive and responses were not required. It is seen as an indication that the responder is happy with the category or credit as is. 

The top 5 most commented on credits were: 

1. NW2.2 Manage Stormwater 

2. QL3.1 Advance Equity & Social Justice 

3. CR1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Carbon 

4. RA2.2 Reduce Construction Energy Consumption 

5. QL1.5 Minimize Light Pollution 

Framework-level insights highlighted several priority areas, including: 

• Clearer applicability determinations 

• More samples and examples 

• Standardized calculators 

• Consistent terminology 

• Stronger consideration of international contexts 

Analysis of Envision v3 Project Data 

To complement user feedback, ISI analyzed existing Envision v3 data to provide real-world context for proposed updates. This included reviewing results from 117 projects in the verification program across transportation, water, energy, land/environment, and waste sectors. Project sizes ranged from under $5 million to more than $2 billion, with reviewed projects located in the United States, Italy, Canada, Guatemala, and Spain. 

This analysis, helped identify trends in credit achievement, scoring by review phase, and award levels pursued to provide a data-driven foundation for the refinement process. Here are a few of the findings: 

The graph below illustrates the project verification levels by sector.  

The next graph shows that, on average, scores for projects going through the verification program are reduced by 11% from the round 1 submission to the final verified score. Unsurprisingly, the largest deviation occursbetween the first submission score and the first verification review score. This is part of a learning process, whereby the verifier comments guide the project team to clarify statements and submit additionaldocumentation for the round 2 submission. The delta between the round 2 submission and review scores is far smaller. As part of the verification process, project teams are allowed to request additional reviews (i.e., round 3) for an additional cost. Post-construction (PC) reviews are required for projects submitting for verification using Pathway A (Design + Post-Construction). The change between the PC submission and PC review scores is shown to be minimal.  

As illustrated in the graph below, project scores for all verification levels follow a similar trajectory as they navigate the verification process. This graph notes projects submitting high above the platinum threshold as “ultra platinum” to show outcomes for projects that initially target a very high number of points. This graph supports that projects can be most successful and get the most value from their effort when they are selective in which credits they submit. 

This last graph shows the number of credits submitted for a project appears to directly correlate to the final verification level, with the average number of credits scored across all projects at 34. This data helps to illustrate that not all projects should or need to submit for all credits, and that projects targeting lower verification levels will likely submit less credits as part of the verification process. Project teams can therefore be more focused on the credits that provide the most value to their project to reduce the level of effort for their submission. 

In October 2025, the ERB and the Sustainable Infrastructure Advisory Board (SIAB) convened to review the findings from the data collection process and establish a roadmap for drafting and refinement. 

2026: Drafting and Refinement Underway 

With data collection complete, 2026 marks the active development phase for Envision v4. 

Key Goals 

The drafting and refinement process is guided by several core objectives: 

• Refine credit language and criteria to address identified issues 

• Explore ways to streamline documentation requirements and reduce effort for project teams 

• Update introductory guidance manual content for greater clarity and usability 

• Test proposed changes with targeted participants to ensure they are practical, clear, and effective 

Collaborative Process 

The ERB and ISI staff are working closely together to deliver these updates. ERB-led workgroups have been formed around specific topics and credits, enabling focused, expert-driven refinement. The ERB is currently meeting monthly, with workgroups convening as needed to keep development on schedule. 

This collaborative structure ensures that Envision v4 reflects both technical rigor and real-world application to balance consistency with flexibility, and clarity with global relevance. 

Thank You to Our Contributors 

ISI extends sincere appreciation to everyone who shared their time, experience, and insights during the 2025 data collection phase. Your feedback is directly shaping the future of Envision. 

We are also grateful to former ERB members who continue to support this effort in an advisory capacity, and to current ERB members who are dedicating significant time and expertise to this important system update. Their commitment helps ensure that Envision v4 will continue to support higher performance through better infrastructure decisions for many years to come.