Buildings globally consume approximately 40 per cent of total electricity produced and emit about 30 per cent of carbon dioxide (CO2) ( JKR and CIDB, 2016). However, extensive research and development have been done to enhance building performance through energy simulations and “green” building concept. Green buildings are constructed using resource-efficient and environmentally responsible processes throughout the building’s life cycle, to mitigate energy consumption, greenhouse gas emission, etc. (EPA, 2016). Moreover, various rating tools have been adopted by different countries, to ascertain whether the green building meets certain standards. In the USA, there is Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED). In the UK, the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was established. The green building index (GBI) is one of the green building rating tools in Malaysia. Due to the need for resource efficiency and enhanced workers output, several offices are adopting the green building concept. Adoption of green office building practices provides the triple-bottom-line benefits of sustainable development, in terms of environmental, economic, and social aspect (Nilashi et al., 2015). Some of the environmental benefits include: air and water quality improvement; waste reduction; and natural resource conservation (CIDB, 2016). Other possible economic benefits could include: reduction of operation and maintenance costs; life cycle economic performance optimisation, etc. (Ahn, 2010). Also, the perceived social benefit includes: occupants’ productivity improvement and occupants’ healthy living. Nevertheless, many researchers have argued that most green office buildings are not energy efficient as claimed. According to Turner and Frankel (2008), 28 per cent of green buildings in the USA consumed more energy than their conventional counterparts. A recent study by Zaid et al. (2017) confirmed that green office buildings in Malaysia consume more energy than conventional office buildings; due to lack of information, poor management policies, and occupants’ comfort criteria (Zhou et al., 2013). Occupants’ satisfaction disparity is among the major causes of variation in energy consumption of green office buildings ( Junaidah et al., 2015). As stated by Frankel (2008), Ashuri (2010) and Zaid and Kiani (2016), the actual energy consumed by green office buildings in Malaysia is higher than the predicted energy due to occupants’ behavioural discrepancies. The issue of occupants’ behaviour is a global concern and several strategies have been established to enable occupants’ efficient use of energy in green buildings. In the USA, researchers such as Heschong Mahone (2012) and Moezzi and Janda (2013) opined that energy-behaviour change can be achieved via long-term behavioural persistence and continued participation in energy programmes. In Denmark, the impact of occupants on energy consumption has been reduced drastically using the stochastic models (Larsen et al., 2010). In tropical countries like Indonesia and Singapore, strategies such as energy efficient management framework have been developed for occupants (Zaid et al., 2015). In Malaysia, there are limited literature on energy efficiency (EE) practices for green office building occupants. Nevertheless, few researchers such as Hassan et al. (2015), Aghili et al. (2016) and Zaid et al. (2017) conducted studies on EE management strategies for green building in general. Shafii (2008) and Zaid et al. (2015) confirmed that there is no comprehensive EE practices for green building occupants in Malaysia. Besides, GBI does not rate how buildings are operated rather it only rates how green buildings in Malaysia are designed (Zaid and Kiani, 2016). Thus, there is a need for more involvement on the human aspect to achieve the objective of green buildings in Malaysia