See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261079555

LEED and BREEAM; Comparison between policies, assessment criteria and

calculation methods

Conference Paper · May 2012

CITATIONS READS

22 26,882

3 authors, including:

Anahita Rezaallah Roham Afghani Khoraskani

Politecnico di Milano Shahid Beheshti University
15 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 180 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roham Afghani Khoraskani on 31 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

LEED and BREEAM; Comparison between policies, assessment
criteria and calculation methods

A. Rezaallah & C. Bolognesi

Department of Progettazione dell’Architettura, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

R. A. Khoraskani
Department of BEST, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

ABSTRACT: BREEAM and LEED are the two most widely recognized environmental assess-
ment methods used globally in the construction industry today. Each has different strengths and
weaknesses, with differing philosophies and business strategies. Generally it is not straightfor-
ward to compare the two. This article gives an overview about the BREEAM and LEED – NC
through their history, facts and characteristics. It provides an indication on the differences be-
tween their policies, practices and their approaches towards the global market. It looks at the
BREEAM Offices 2008 and LEED – NC (New Constructions and Major Renovations) 2009
main categories and factors they consider through their assessment process, and compares in
detail their distinctions involving the priority and importance of these factors, among their dif-
ferent calculation methods and the process of certifying a building.

1 INTRODUCTION
With so much attention being drawn towards the perils of our planet and the environmental im-
pact that a global population is causing on natural resources, forward-thinking companies and
individuals are developing new ways to solve human needs for new buildings and minimize the
impact of these activities on environment. Among the different approaches and tactics that are
being applied in order to describe, quantify and control these impacts, the most influential ones
are BSA tools and methods accompanied by the new regulation worldwide for the building in-
dustry.
There are some main categories that are being considered in designing a sustainable and
green building; energy efficiency, CO2 emission, material selection, water management and in-
door environment quality and waste reduction are among them. The main aim of green design
and refurbishment of a building is to have less impact on the environment, less use of natural
resources and improve the health and overall quality of life of human beings. (Rezaallah 2012)
1.1 Regulations; Environment and Building Industry
Initiatives to address the problem of energy consumption are not new. They have been devel-
oped in 1970s with the oil shock and energy crises that hit the capitalist economies hard. It was
almost two decades after in 1990s with the growing sense of emergency and problem of climate
change that global agreements focused on the problem of environment.
The building sector has a considerable potential for cost effective energy savings, it means
that by exploiting this potential the EU will have the possibility of consuming 30 percent less
energy in 2020.
Knowing all these facts, in addition to the problems that CO2 emission causes on environ-
ment, and continuously rising prices of energy, the European countries are putting to act many
regulations on regional, state and European levels for residential buildings. There are also inter-
national protocols and milestones like Kyoto protocol or “20-20-20” that needs to be fulfilled by
European nations.
The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at fighting global warming. The Protocol was initially
adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and entered in to force on 16 February 2005.
Under the Protocol, 37 countries commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse
gases and two groups of gases produced by them, and all member countries give general com-
mitments. At conference, countries (including the USA) collectively agreed to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% on average for the period 2008-2012. This reduction is rela-
tive to their annual emissions in a base year, usually 1990.
In 2007, the EU established what it described as the 20-20-20 objectives: a 20 percent de-
crease in CO2 emissions; a 20 percent increase in energy efficiency; and increasing the percent-
age of energy generated from renewable sources to 20 percent.
Green design and green refurbishment of the buildings will makes it much easier to reach
these goals and meet the targets set for the future.

1.2 BSA Tools and Methods

Building environmental assessment methods have emerged as a legitimate means to evaluate the
performance of buildings across a broader range of environmental considerations. The increase
in development and application of such methods has provided considerable theoretical and prac-
tical experience on their potential contribution in furthering green and environmentally respon-
sible building practices. BREEAM and LEED are the two most widely recognized environ-
mental assessment methods used globally in the construction industry today. Each has different
strengths and weaknesses, with differing philosophies and business strategies. Generally it is not
straightforward to compare the two. What might be applicable in one assessment method might
not be relevant in another.

2 BREEAM (BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT METHOD)
2.1 History and Overview
The first certification system to assess the sustainability of the buildings was BREEAM, which
was published in United Kingdom. The system was administrated and developed by BRE
(Building Research Establishment) at the end of 1980s and introduced to the market in 1990.
It was originally designed as a national system for office and residential buildings. The certi-
fication system is now used worldwide for a range of different building types. According to
BRE, any building throughout the world can be assessed with BREEAM.

2.2 Market Penetration

Although the certification system has been used in different countries around the world, the
main focus is UK.
In comparison with other certification systems worldwide, BREEAM has the highest number
of registered (buildings that have applied for the certification) and certified buildings. A large
number of these buildings in UK are residential buildings, which is the consequence of govern-
ment regulations. (Ebert 2011)
By 2009, 818,943 residential buildings and 22,972 other buildings were registered worldwide
(BRE 2011) and more than 115,000 buildings had been certified in UK (BREEAM International
2009). Most of the certified buildings in UK are residential buildings.

2.3 Certification Schemes

In UK, BREEAM have different certification schemes for different building types.
For non-residential buildings:
− BREEAM Offices
− BREEAM Retail
− BREEAM Industrial (factories and ware-houses)
− BREEAM Educational (schools)
− BREEAM Healthcare (medical facilities)
− BREEAM Courts
− BREEAM Prisons
− BREEAM Other Buildings (any building that is outside the standard categories for example
laboratories, hotels, leisure complexes etc.)

For residential buildings:

− BREEAM EcoHomes (refurbishment in England, new builds in Wales and Scotland)
− BREEAM Eco Homes XB (a tool for housing associations and etc.)
− The Code for Sustainable Homes (new single-family homes and apartments in England)
− BREEAM Multi-Residential (student halls for residence, sheltered housing, youth hotels and
etc.)
− BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment (refurbishment of existing buildings)

The scheme ‘BREEAM International’ has been developed for buildings outside the UK and cur-
rently includes the following versions:
− BREEAM Gulf (all building types within the Persian Gulf region)
− BREEAM Europe (selected European countries; office and retail buildings)
− BREEAM Communities (urban planning / development)
− BREEAM International Bespoke (any building type)
− BREEAM In-Use (different existing buildings)

2.4 Assessment Criteria’s

There are ten main categories to be considered during the evaluation of credits in BREEAM
2011 sustainability assessment system, which is an updated version of BREEAM Offices 2008.
Each category has some different criteria related to it and depending on the type of the building
and certification schemes these criteria can be different and even some of them might not be
considered. BREEAM has 76 criteria. Mandatory minimum performance standards are set for
some of the categories, which they must be met, whatever Code level is sought. In the calcula-
tion process credits are not awarded for the mandatory criteria. The ten main categories are:
− Energy (Ene)
− Materials (Mat)
− Innovation (Inn)
− Waste (Wst)
− Pollution (Pol)
− Health & well being (Hea)
− Water (Wat)
− Transport (Tra)
− Management (Man)
− Land Use and Ecology (LE)

2.5 Certification Process

Participation of an assessor is mandatory in all different BREEAM schemes and an assessor
must submit the BREEAM report for the certification to BRE. The assessors are experts who
have been trained and approved by BREEAM through formal educational courses and examina-
tion. They are responsible for performing an objective assessment and ensuring a consistent de-
gree of quality within the process of certification. They corporate with the designing team and
construction team, they are trained to calculate the points in each different category and sub-
categories with the help of BREEAM calculator tools then they report it to the BRE, who vali-
date the assessment and issues the certificate.

2.6 Calculation Methods

The assessment process should proceed in a logical order through the environmental impact
categories and criteria.
It should begin with a check that the mandatory criteria for which no credits are awarded
have been achieved
The remaining tradable credits should be checked and confirmed so that they too contribute
to the required sustainability level. If any of the standards for the non-creditable criteria are not
met, then a zero rating will result, regardless of the other credits achieved, including the credit-
able mandatory criteria.
For every category, the number of credits achieved is divided by the total available and mul-
tiplied by the category-weighting factor to give a percentage point score for the category. This
number should be rounded down to two decimal places before the next step. The weighting fac-
tors show the contribution made by each category to the total performance recognized and re-
warded by the BREEAM. It is important to note that weightings apply at the category level and
not for individual criteria to avoid rounding errors.
The rounded percentage point scores for each category are then summed to arrive at the
Total percentage point’s score for the building. The Total percentage point score must be
rounded down to the nearest whole number.
The sustainability Level is then derived from the Total percentage points according to the ta-
ble.

Table 1. BREEAM certifications Levels.

BREEAM Rating Overall Achievement
Unclassified < 30%
Pass ≥ 30%
Good ≥ 45%
Very good ≥ 55%
Excellent ≥ 70%
Outstanding ≥ 85%

3 LEED (LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN)

3.1 History and Overview
LEED is a certification program developed by USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) at the
end of 90s. The motivation to create this system was the demand for an assessment tool that can
measure and compare the sustainability of the buildings.
The aim of LEED green building rating system is to provide developers, owners and opera-
tors with information that assist them to apply different solutions and technologies to the build-
ing for sustainable design, construction and maintenance and to identify the sustainability meas-
ures of their building.

3.2 Market Penetration

LEED was originally designed for the American market but now is in use worldwide. In April
2010, 27,696 commercial and office buildings were registered for a LEED certification. 5,462
of these buildings have been certified. The majority of these buildings are located in USA.
The LEED for homes was introduced to the market in 2007 and by April 2010, 24,939 resi-
dential buildings were registered for certification. 5,988 of these buildings have been certified.
(Ebert 2011)

3.3 Certification Schemes

Currently LEED has ten different rating systems for different types of buildings, which are:
− LEED – NC (New Construction and Major Renovations)
− LEED – EB: O&M (Existing Buildings: Operational and Maintenance)
− LEED – CI (Commercial Interiors)
− LEED – CS (Core and Shell)
− LEED – H (Homes)
− LEED for Schools
− LEED – ND (Neighborhood Development)
− LEED Volume Certification
− LEED – Retail: NC and CI (Retail: New Construction and Commercial Interiors)
− LEED for Healthcare

Several countries around the world have adopted the LEED certification system and adjusted it
to their specific conditions and requirements. Some of these countries are:
− India (LEED India)
− Italy (LEED Italy)
− Canada (LEED Canada)

3.4 Assessment Criteria

The LEED sustainability assessment method is based on points, which are being given to indi-
vidual credits. There are 43 different criteria in LEED. The credits are divided in to seven main
categories. The weight of categories is slightly different between the rating systems. These cate-
gories are the same in all of the LEED rating systems except in ‘LEED – NA’ and ‘LEED
Homes’. The seven main categories are:
− Energy and Atmosphere (EA)
− Water Efficiency (WE)
− Sustainable Sites (SS)
− Materials and Resources (MR)
− Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ)
− Innovation & Design (ID)
− Regional Priority (RP)

3.5 Certification Process

For certifying a building with LEED in a similar way with BREEAM there accredited profes-
sionals who are helping to collect the evidences and sending the documentation to the GBCI
(Green Building Certification Institutes) which is a non – profit organization and a part of
USGBC.
Originally USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) was the only responsible for all the as-
pects of LEED from developing the rating system to educating, examinations and issuing the
certificates. Since January 2008 GBCI (Green Building Certification Institutes) is responsible
for the entire certification process up to completing and awarding the certificates as well as
LEED accreditation.
For becoming a LEED accredited basic knowledge about the LEED and sustainable build-
ings, which will be tasted in an exam, is the first stage. The one who passes this stage success-
fully will become LEED Green Associate. As the second stage participating in a LEED project
or professional experience dealing with sustainability are the requirements for the exam. The
ones who pass this stage successfully will become LEED Accredited Professional (AP). Then
the AP has to specialize in a specific LEED rating system by taking another exam. Both of these
titles are valid for two years and they are renewable by taking further exams or providing the
evidence of additional training, working on a registered LEED project or publications regarding
LEED or building sustainability.
The highest accreditation level is LEED Fellow, which will be awarded to LEED APs that
have maintained their title for at least 8 years and have professional experience in the green
building sector for at least 10 years.
LEED accreditation is not mandatory for preparing and submitting the documents to the
GBCI (Green Building Certification Institutes) and cooperation with LEED AP is awarded one
point in the assessment process. Working with an AP is beneficial for the design and construc-
tion team because of their knowledge and experience in the field, which will make achieving the
target level easier. The role of the AP is to help gather the evidence and advise the client. The
evidence is then submitted to the GBCI, which does the assessment and issues the certificate.

3.6 Calculation Methods

Calculating the points for LEED is through checklists, which gives the design team a wide
range of devices and technologies to consider using.
The assessment is based on points and all LEED criteria are worth a minimum of 1 point. All
LEED rating systems have 100 base points; Innovation in Design (or Operations) and Regional
Priority credits provide opportunities for up to 10 bonus points.
There are different topic areas included in the LEED assessment method and each of the top-
ics has a unique goal. LEED guarantees minimum levels of sustainable practice through manda-
tory measures in different credit categories and there are no points for meeting the mandatory
minimum requirements. All categories and criteria are listed with the number of available
points.
In LEED rating system is not possible to meet only a proportion of a criteria requirements,
the requirements are either met or not. The only exception is made for three criteria; water use
reduction, optimize energy performance and on – site renewable energy. The number of credit
awarded to these three criteria depends on the degree of fulfillment.
In case of LEED, there is no multiplying system similar to BREEAM and points are awarded
directly. Sum of all the points of all the categories is equal to total score.
The four performance tiers according to the number of points earned indicate the level of
sustainability performance of the building.

Table 2. LEED certifications Levels (LEED – NC 2009)

LEED Rating Points
Certified 40 – 49
Silver 50 – 59
Gold 60 – 79
Platinum ≥ 80

4 COMPARISON

The two building sustainability assessment tools have their differences as well as similarities.
Table 3 shows a detailed comparison between the main characteristics of these two systems,
which are BREEAM Offices 2008 and LEED - NC (New Constructions and Major Renova-
tions) 2009.
Table 3. Comparison of the two BSA system characteristics (Ebert 2011)
BREEAM LEED
Assessment Method BRE Environmental Method Leadership in Energy
And Environmental De-
sign
Certification Body BRE USGBC
Launch 1990 1998
Number of categories 10 6
Main categories Energy Energy and Atmosphere
Materials Water Efficiency
Innovation Sustainable Sites
Waste Materials and Resources
Pollution Indoor Environment Quality
Health & well-being Innovation &Design
Water
Transport
Land Use and Ecology
Management
Number of Criteria 76 43
Number of Mandatory Criteria 27 28
Weightings For each individual category No Weightings
Calculation style In % With Points
Result Unclassified Certified
Pass Silver
Good Gold
Very good Platinum
Excellent
Outstanding

There is a large overlap between the two systems assessment criteria. The table 4 (Elgendy
2010) demonstrates the general emphasis of the major categories of BREEAM and LEED and
their relative weights in each rating system. It also shows that there is a considerable overlap
between the two systems with each system having its on particularities (Facilities Management
in the Case of BREEAM, and Regional Priority in the case of LEED). The table is for general
comparison purposes only as it does not take into account point-less prerequisites. The names of
some categories have been adjusted and some credits have been moved across categories to
simplify the comparison.

Table 4. Overlapping categories and their influences on each BSA tool

Category BREEAM LEED
Site Selection & Ecology 20.5% 24.5%
Water 2.5% 5.5%
Energy 33% 33%
Materials 13.5% 13.5%
Indoor Environment Quality 13% 14%
Innovation 6.5% 6.5%
Facility Management 12% -
Regional Priority - 4%

To categorize the level of sustainability of the buildings, LEED applies a scale of platinum,
gold and silver, while BREEAM adopts a scale from pass to excellent. The different type of
naming the certification levels can make the comparison between the two systems a bit compli-
cated. A study by BRE (BRE, 2008) concluded that there are high levels of variation between
the systems for the same ‘grade’ or ‘rating’ than might be expected. For example, BREEAM
Excellent and LEED Platinum office building are not equivalent in terms of sustainability fea-
tures or environmental impact (BRE, 2008). LEED, when applied to UK buildings, rated those
buildings higher than the UK BREEAM assessment method. Overall, BRE stated that none of
the systems they examined (BREEAM, LEED and etc) traveled well in terms of comparison.
One aspect that is very important to address in both of the certification systems is the opera-
tional performance. Both LEED and BREEAM need to clarify whether a high rating actually
means an improvement in the building's efficiency and operational performance. They simply
rate the 'asset' and do not consider how the building will operate in reality in future.
LEED is ahead considering this matter, the owners of the buildings are mandate to provide
them with the utility consumption data after five years and in case the owners don’t provide the
USGBC with such a data, they have to sign a waiver so that the USGBC will get the data from
the utility providers.
BREEAM 2011 has started to consider the post occupancy issue by emphasizing the commis-
sioning the first year of occupation. It contains credits for 'seasonal commissioning', collecting
and analyzing energy performance and consumption data for the first year; and providing ex-
tended aftercare. All the excellent and out- standing rated buildings have to complete the
BREEAM In – USE assessment in three years.
There are some other significant differences between the two BSA tools. In general, LEED is
slightly simpler and easier to use but this can also be considered a weakness if owners are push-
ing to improve environmental performance of the buildings. BREEAM is arguably stricter as it
sets more absolute targets. LEED sets relative percentage reduction targets. For instance, in case
of materials, LEED looks at the usage of local sources of the material and also percentage of
recycled content, while BREEAM is more precise and considers the wider environmental im-
pacts of building different elements by awarding the credits using the Green Guide to Specifica-
tion and a 'responsible-sourcing' index. In case of water, BREEAM credits are based on cubic
meters per person per year; LEED points are base on the water use reduction percentage. A 40%
reduction in water use achieves maximum points under LEED, but only gets one or two credits
under BREEAM.
The main concern of the both BREEAM and LEED rating systems is to move towards inter-
nationalization. For being more easily accepted and adopted to the global market both systems
have to work on their disadvantages. They are constantly trying to improve their weaknesses to
optimize building performance and minimize environmental impact; provide a measure of a
building’s effect on the environment; and set credible standards’ by which buildings can be
judged objectively. They are learning from each other’s strength points.

5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Both LEED and BREEAM building sustainability assessment tools have their own advantages
as well as disadvantages.
One of the aspects that makes the LEED more simple is the easy calculation method, which is
done through a checklist that makes it very easy and transparent to calculate the points and
evaluate the final score by sum of the points without any weighting. BREEAM is more compli-
cated, more strict and accurate. The calculation of the points is through different calculators and
is followed by various weighting scores for each category considered in the evaluation. This
complex process makes the calculation less transparent, which is a disadvantage of BREEAM.
For the international market the transparency is essential and BREEAM should try to make the
calculation of the points more transparent for the market, developers and operators of the build-
ings.
At the international scale the advantages and disadvantages of these two systems is very
much dependent on the regional standards, lows and legislations. LEED is more dominated by
ASHREA standards while BREEAM uses European and UK codes. Higher similarities between
the regional standards and the code mentioned above will further assist the adaptation of the
assessment tool for the regional purposes in the international market. Generally in this scene,
BREEAM has more attention to the regional standards, laws and legislations. It tries to consider
the specific characteristic of different countries in accordance with their climatic situation. As
an example BREEAM Gulf has been adapted for the local market. The weightings are changed
so that water is the key issue, rather than energy as in the standard UK schemes.
BREEAM also has long been able to adapt to local contexts. With BREEAM Bespoke, for
example, the assessor can work with BRE to develop assessment criteria specially tailored to a
building where it doesn't fit neatly into one of the existing schemes. (Parker 2009)
Never the less LEED has also provided adaptability by using regional bonus for weighting
different environmentally important factors for different regions in the USA. There are six re-
gional priority credits available only for the USA. Also some individual national green building
councils in other countries have developed some domesticated versions of LEED such as Can-
ada and India. There are other countries such as Italy who are in the developing process.

6 CONCLUSION

The main aim of these two methods is to encourage the mass of building stock towards higher
levels of environmental performance. The two methods have their similarities as well as differ-
ences; they are improving and updating their judging criteria with legislative developments and
current best practices. Since the main differences between the two systems arise from their poli-
cies and the bureaucratic environment of their origins, it is somehow unreasonable to praise one
over the other and the decision to choose one over the other highly depends on the background
and regional conditions of the projects. All of the comparisons and studies of different assess-
ment tools proves that building certification in each country idealistically should be done by the
country’s specific certification system. These building sustainability assessment tools are sup-
posed to adapt the local political, regional standards and laws, social and climatic conditions of
each country.

REFERENCES

BRE , 10 things you might not know about the BRE Group [Homepage of BRE Global Ltd], [Online].
Available: http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1707 [2011, .
BRE (2008) A Discussion Document Comparing International Environmental Assessment Methods for
Buildings. BRE, Glasgow.
BREEAM International 2009, BREEAM Europe Commercial 2009 Assessor Manual, BRE Global Ltd.
BREEAM 2011, BREEAM New Construction – Non Domestic Buildings Technical Manual 2011, BRE
Global Ltd.
BREEAM Offices 2008, BREEAM Offices 2008 Assessor Manual, BRE Global Ltd.
Cheshire, D. 2011, , BREEAM versus LEED: the battle over green building assessment. Avail-
able: http://www.sustainablebusinessonline.com/news/news.asp?id=308.
Ebert, T., Essig, N. & Hauser, G. 2011, Green building certification systems, 1st (edn), DETAIL, Mu-
nich.
Elgendy. K , Comparing Estidama’s Pearls Rating System to LEED and BREEAM, CARBOUN Middle
East Sustainability and Environment, 2010.
LEED 2009, LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations Rating System With Alternative Com-
pliance Paths For Projects Outside the U.S., U.S. Green Building Council, Washington DC.
LEED 2011, LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Rating System With Alternative
Compliance Paths For Projects Outside the U.S. (Updated November 2011) U.S. Green Building
Council, Washington DC.
Parker, J. , BREEAM or LEED - strengths and weaknesses of the two main environmental assessment
methods [Homepage of BSRIA Ltd], [Online]. Available: http://www.bsria.co.uk/news/breeam-or-
leed/[February 2009, .
Parker, J. , Model project - Herman Miller UK HQ [Homepage of BSRIA Ltd], [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.bsria.co.uk/news/herman-miller/ [September 2009, .
 Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. & Schulte, K. 2011, "International Comparison of Sustainable Rating
Tools", American Real Estate Society American Real Estate Society, vol. 1, no. Number 1 / 2009, pp.
1-22.
Rezaallah A., Bolognesi C. & Afghani K R. (2012). “Green Design; A Necessity for Future of Social Hous-
ing”. IAHS XXXVIII World Congress on Housing, Istanbul, Turkey.
Starrs, M. 2010, BREEAM versus LEED, White paper (edn), Inbuilt Ltd, Kings Langley, UK.

View publication stats