Sustainability survey key findings
The changing face of sustainability
Our survey findings
What is industry perception of BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes?
Have the ratings systems created confusion or have they encouraged a step change in the Industry?
The Background
There has been a lot of industry change since we issued the first of our Thought Leadership series with the confirmation that the Government will no longer support CSH as a means to deliver sustainability in the housing market. Since that announcement, the BRE responding by announcing it will launch a new standard to fill the gap, a new BREEAM 2014 assessment tool.
For the second Thought Leadership articles, Greengage conducted a sustainability survey in order to determine the industry perceptions of BREEAM and CSH. The survey was completed by experienced professionals the majority of whom have over 10 years’ experience and who work on a regular basis on BREEAM / CSH projects. The executives polled represented a cross-section of disciplines within the wider construction industry and a range of company sizes.
To supplement the survey results, we also conducted in-depth interviews with 5 key executives including: Sustainability Executive; Director of Planning; Project Manager, Architect and; Sustainability Consultant.
The Interviewees
We would like to thank all the executives who participated in the survey and interviews for their time and insight.
Sarah Cary, Sustainable Developments Executive, The British Land Company PLC
Philip Allard, Director, Wildstone
Festus Moffat, RIBA, Director, JRA Architects
Paul Kerry, Project Manager, McLaren Group
Jon Buick, Climate Change Projects Officer, London Borough of Merton Council
Executive Summary
The Greengage Survey on the Perception of BREEAM and the Code for Sustainable Homes has found strong support for Zero Carbon Targets and that industry opinion of BREEAM and CSH remains positive.
Our survey of over 2,000 professionals demonstrated that while the Assessment Tools challenging in parts, in general both BREAAM and CSH were seen as bringing about a stepped improvement in sustainability. We also conducted interviews with senior industry figures and the general sentiment that emerged was that, while it was felt the systems are overly prescriptive, many companies use the requirements to encourage actively integration of sustainability objectives in areas that would otherwise get overlooked.
The results demonstrate that industry perceptions about the rating systems have changed little since they were first introduced with opinion remaining strongly in favour of the systems. The survey indicated that this level of support for BREEAM and CSH is likely to continue into the immediate future with the vast majority of those polled calling for retention of strong sustainability targets and zero carbon ambitions. Approximately 88% strongly agree that zero carbon should be pursued.
"Despite the negative press often associated with the industry, our survey demonstrates that there is strong support for both systems and sustainability in general. This is positive news!"
Mitch Cooke, Partner, Greengage
While the systems were criticised by some for being overly prescriptive, over the last decade they have contributed to the step change in the industry resulting in significant economic as well as environmental benefits. Although it was acknowledged during the interviews that the lack of clear policy direction for new low energy non-domestic buildings such as lack of minimum fabric efficiency standards has perhaps hampered industry efforts.
The respondents stated that improving building performance (52%) and cost (38%) were critical in response to the question regarding what are the key factors influencing zero carbon targets. According to the survey results, Energy was perceived to have the greatest potential to improve the sustainability of projects both now and into the future. The category was predicted by 56% of respondents to dominate the sustainability debate over the next 25 years.
The number of BREEAM registered projects continues to rise on an annual basis thus demonstrating that sustainability will continue to be a priority. Overwhelmingly, there is strong support for strong sustainability targets and zero carbon ambitions continuing into the future. Therefore our survey and interview results suggest that if implemented alongside strong policy drivers they will assist the UK to meet its GHG emissions targets as well as provide significant opportunity and economic value through avoided energy costs.
"The overwhelming support for Zero Carbon Targets is really positive, especially considering that achieving these targets presents the industry with a significant challenge. This ‘heads-up’ forward-thinking approach to sustainability is testaments to how far the built environment, and those who deliver it, has come."
Ruth Geeson, Associate Partner, Greengage
Perception of BREEAM and The Code for Sustainable Homes
The Code for Sustainable Homes was introduced to drive a step-change in sustainable home building practice. Since 2006 it became the go to standard for key elements of residential sustainable design and construction.
However, eight years after it was introduced it has been overtaken by various regulatory and policy developments that have ensured that the Code is seen by many as an administrative burden rather than as a stimulus for change.
BREEAM, the leading method of assessing commercial buildings has also been accused of being over prescriptive with too little in built flexibility.
Confusion or Improvement?
The purpose of the survey and subsequent interviews was to determine whether the ratings systems have resulted in industry and market confusion, rather than driving improvements in Building Regulations relating to carbon emissions and energy use in homes and commercial buildings.
Greengage also wanted to determine whether or not the use of the systems has become a check-box exercise that circumvents the true goals of sustainable development as opposed to offering a tool for developers to embrace in order to differentiate themselves amid greater regulatory certainty.
What was your perception of CSH / BREEAM when it was first introduced?
We were keen to learn how the professionals we work with currently view CSH and BREEAM. Our survey of over 2000 contacts proved to be very informative and we are delighted to be able to share our findings with you over the next few pages.
Key Findings
Survey Results
CSH and BREEAM have had a positive effect on the sustainability agenda.
But have they become an administration burden?
Introduction
Within the UK, BREEAM is now the leading method of assessing commercial buildings along with its residential equivalent, the Code for Sustainable Homes. BREEAM has expanded from the original focus on individual new buildings at construction stage, to encompass the whole life cycle of buildings and communities all over the world – from planning and design to in-use and refurbishment.
However, the system and the process come under a lot of scrutiny with critics stating the systems are overly prescriptive. The Government have attempted to respond to such criticisms with their latest review of both systems and the subsequent BREEAM 2014 updates.
Our Survey results highlight the perceptions and current attitudes towards BREEAM.
Key Findings
The response to our survey found that senior industry figures and executives at all levels are highly supportive of the BREEAM and CSH Assessment Tools. They expressed the belief that they have great potential to positively impact upon energy use within developments.
76% of respondents are confident in BREEAM and CSH
Greengage Perception of BREEAM & CSH Survey Results
The overriding message from the survey was overwhelming support from practitioners for Zero Carbon Targets and that opinion of BREEAM and CSH remains positive.
Positive Future
According to the respondents, industry perception of BREEAM and CSH is very positive. Overall 76% are confident in BREEAM and CSH, believing it makes a progressive contribution to industry efforts to promote sustainability within their projects.
The Survey Results demonstrated continued confidence in BREEAM
The survey indicated that this level of support for BREEAM and CSH is likely to continue into the immediate future.
The vast majority of those polled called for retention of strong sustainability targets and zero carbon ambitions.
88% of respondents agree that zero carbon should be pursued
Greengage Perception of BREEAM & CSH Survey Results
Approximately 88% strongly agree that zero carbon should be pursued – as per the current targets for new UK domestic (zero carbon by 2016) and non-domestic developments (zero carbon by 2019).
The level of disagreement with this sentiment was very low - at just 12%, perhaps reflecting the realisation that sustainability is becoming an integral part of smart business strategy.
Performance and Cost
Improving building performance and cost were among the factors perceived as having most influence over zero carbon building targets.
However, it is believed that the lack of clear policy direction for new low energy non-domestic buildings such as lack of minimum fabric efficiency standards has perhaps hampered industry efforts to form a united front on building performance. Without clear policy drivers, the respondents believe that supply chains within the industry may not be in a position to deliver necessary solutions within required time frames.
Aligned non-domestic sector policy would help reduce building performance concerns by creating opportunities for investment in new technologies and construction methods. Such investment would result in economic efficiency through decreasing technology and building costs as innovation and skill sets increase. Operational cost savings are also implicit.
Energy is key
We asked the respondents which category within the Rating Systems has the greatest potential to improve the sustainability of their projects.
While it is reaffirming to see that Ecology and Materials were seen as influential, over half the respondents cited that Energy has the greatest potential to improve the sustainability of their projects. This result aligns with the above findings in relation to building performance.
But is water being ignored?
Somewhat surprising however, was the lack of influence place on water. This is a rather worrying outcome given that nearly 20 years the World Bank began warning of a looming water crisis. They predicted that the combination of a surging population, a growing global middle class and a changing climate would result in strained water supplies. For companies – from multinational corporations to small businesses if such a prediction is to come true, it will at the very least result in higher costs for a resource that has long been taken for granted.
Although the industry is starting to discuss water use at strategic level, perhaps this lack of acknowledgement reflects the low level of impetus placed on water conservation at the corporate policy level.
The key issues in 25 years
We also asked the respondents to do a bit of crystal ball gazing and predict what they see as the key sustainability issues in 25 years’ time. Again, energy came top of the list:
37% of respondents believe energy will dominate the sustainability debate in 25 years time
Greengage Perception of BREEAM & CSH Survey Results
Perhaps surprising, given the current lack of emphasis, water was forecast as the second most important issue with 18%. Climate change was further down the list which was somewhat unexpected given the high profile debates concerning this issue. Approximately 12% of respondents predicted waste to be the key concern.
Experienced Professionals
The vast majority of those who responded - over 68%, work ‘very frequently’ on BREEAM and CSH Projects. Of those polled, many are experts in their field, with 48% having between 5-10 years’ experience and 28% bringing between 10-20 years’ worth of knowledge and expertise.
Conclusion
The Greengage survey determined that BREEAM and CSH Rating Systems and associated zero carbon targets are welcomed and valued within the industry.
The number of BREEAM registered projects continues to rise on an annual basis thus demonstrating that sustainability will continue to be priority. Overwhelmingly, there is strong support for strong sustainability targets and zero carbon ambitions continuing into the future.
Industry perceptions about the rating systems have changed little since they were first introduced with opinion remaining strongly in favour of the systems.
While critics and some users agree that the systems are a burdensome check box exercise, over the last decade they have contributed to the step change in the industry resulting in significant economic as well as environmental benefits.
Looking forward, if implemented alongside strong policy drivers, sustainability assessment tools such as BREEAM and CSH will help the UK in meeting its GHG emissions targets as well as providing significant opportunity and economic value through avoided energy costs.
The Interviews
Perception of BREEAM & CSH
"CSH has led significant change for the better but has become an admin nightmare..."
Our Interviewees share their opinions...
Leading a stepped change
In general our interviewees supported the ratings systems at the strategic level. They credited BREEAM and CSH with helping to lead a stepped change in sustainable development over the last number of years.
More specifically, the requirements of the systems were seen as driving exciting innovation in certain technologies such as lighting. Improvements in specification of other materials and standards has also been attributed to BREEAM.
One participant made reference to a large house builder that actively markets their homes based on improved energy efficiency and fuel savings.
"Five to ten years ago, what was thought of as ‘out there’, is now standard. Back then it was stipulated that lighting was 20 watts per sqm. The reality is that we are actually putting in 5 - 8 watts per sqm thanks to LEDs."
Festus Moffat, JRA Architects
It has also been credited with stepped improvements within the procedures and processes of companies. CSR policies are now seen as standard, where as only 15 years ago they were not on the agenda of the senior management, never mind the Board. While there will always be differences between large and smaller organisations, one of the interviewees believes that the systems have resulted in ensuring that most companies now have “sustainability in house”.
As a result, tenants are more interested and aware of sustainability issues. This is demonstrated through stakeholder and tenant requests for improved levels of environmental performance.
"A large number of tenants are really interested in sustainability - there is a demand..."
Sarah Cary, The British Land Company PLC
Burdensome administrative requirements
However our interviewees, whilst believing the systems as a whole were practical and that the standardised elements of the rating system were necessary elements which had helped to drive the sustainability agenda forward, agreed unanimously that the administrative requirements of the systems had become overly burdensome.
Phil Allard, Director at Wildstone Planning believes the “system has become a bit bloated” and that the repetition between requirements of CSH and those of Building Regulations is time consuming. The participants all agreed that the systems suffer from a lack of clarity with the assessment methodology being overly bureaucratic. 
Festus Moffat Architect at JRA, agreed that BREEAM can be a “blunt tool at times”, where certain credits are pursued simply to gain the points rather than for virtuous reasons.
"The CSH has become a little bit superfluous. It feels like it has become a bit of a box ticking exercise to get the points. However there needs to be some kind of mandatory standard on key areas like fabric and energy regulations."
Phil Allard, Wildstone
Another criticism was that the lack of flexibility within the practical application of the tool, resulting in limited methods for introducing innovation into the process. The impact of this impinges directly on the commercial realities of individual projects. (e.g biomass boilers that were never switched on).
Confusing Advice
Although the industry is pushing hard on building efficiency and on zero carbon objectives, one of the repeated criticisms from our interviewees related to the confusing advice given at macro and micro level. It was felt, that the advice at policy level cannot always be implemented at the practical level; while consultants were accused of offering confusing advice.
Such lack of clarity was in part attributed to the performance gap and failure of the industry to reach its objectives.
"The industry is not geared up to deliver zero-carbon"
Festus Moffat, JRA Architects
It was also acknowledged that while the vast majority of clients are very focused on general sustainability issues, there are equally few clients focused on zero carbon. As a result it was claimed by one of our interviewees that the ‘industry is not geared up to deliver zero-carbon’ (Festus Moffat, JRA). This is a worrying thought due to the significant lead in time that is likely to be required for both private industry and Local Authorities to establish the needed legal framework and project delivery capabilities to take on this responsibility.
What is your perception of CSH/BREEAM now?
The call for improved clarity\ & consistency
"Closer alignment of the CSH and Building Regulations would be very welcome..."
Greater clarity and consistency
Closer alignment of the CSH and Building Regulations was welcomed by the panel of interviewees. Due to the variety of opinions among different interests groups, greater clarity and consistency within sustainability policy would be welcome.
"Building regulations are an easily understood framework - in this way there is an advantage of one system for all councils"
John Buick, London Borough of Merton Council
The removal of the code and aligning sustainability with building regulations has the potential to reduce duplication. Rationalization of the CSH was seen to be vital and while this could potentially be achieved through closer alignment with building regulations, caution was voiced.
Key risks
While streamlining of the sustainability systems is deemed necessary, direction on critical issues such as biodiversity and ecology must be guaranteed. If not, there may be a risk of less scrupulous developers taking advantage of less stringent processes.
Some of the key risks associated with removal of CSH raised by the interview panel included a definite threat to critical sustainability factors such as biodiversity, ecology and other factors of local rather than national significance.
One of our interviewees pointed out that “a pure development company may just want to max on profits for the stakeholders. There are plenty of development companies with no CSR. They will tick the boxes as cheaply as possible” (Paul Kelly, McLaren).
Furthermore, it was queried whether building regulations were the appropriate vehicle for driving the sustainability agenda. The Regulations are obviously prescriptive and require standardised application; they are “a one size fits all solution at national level”.
"The industry will need to go from a box ticking exercise to something really relevant once the code is scrapped."
Jon Buick, London Borough of Merton Council
Jon Buick of Merton BC believes that “if you go too far you lose the functionality of some of the standards” and that having a single standard runs the risk of becoming equally onerous for the development.
For instance, at Borough Level, air pollution is effected by transport, high buildings etc. However, it is difficult to legislate for this if you strip sustainability back to implementation at building regulation level.
Should we pursue a zero carbon goal? (i.e. all new UK domestic units to be zero carbon by 2016 and non-domestic developments by 2019)
- Agree
- Don't know
- Disagree
Furthermore, removal of the potential of a borough wide solution restricts capability and potential for achieving solutions at this district level. Local Planning Authorities are often vital in facilitation of developments such as Combined Heat and Power solutions. Such schemes are often only viable at the larger district level - will the market provide the level of integration and joined up administrative processes required if the CSH or similar are not driving the requirement in the first place?
Is Ecology at risk?
In relation to ecology, it is believed that “local authorities do not have the resources to drive this in planning. There is a big gap and unfortunately the Government is lacking levers to push or improve this”.
Review of Building Regulations
Moving towards building regulations may result in a streamlined process, but these too also need review. The main advantage of keeping the Code and Building Regulations separate would be the continued input from Local Authorities providing evidence based information and a joined up framework between local policy, research and development.
Sustainability policy is exceptional political and even if Code is removed, the new system will still require independent assessors or an oversight body. A complete move is considered too drastic with the fear that it will become too static and unwieldy. A dynamic, responsive standard or regulation is required, one whose elements can be tailored to the individual nuances of individual projects.
Behavioural change
One of the key concerns raised by all our panellists related to the need for behavioural change among end users.
It was agreed that how people use the building is very difficult to regulate. Both CSH and BREEAM were criticised for failing to go far enough at operational level and provide worthy educational requirements for building occupiers.
"Part L and zero carbon initiatives focus on the container, but we really need to look at the contents."
Festus Moffat, JRA Architects
It was felt that training and manuals did not do enough to facilitate meaningful education. The problem was surmised as “it is pointless producing a zero carbon shell if users leave the computers on all night/rooms left to being cooled regardless of the outside temperature. But there are no regulatory powers to control this”.
"You need to drive a desire in the end user"
Paul Kerry, McLaren
But what can be done if long term, sustainable solutions are not to the fore of peoples’ minds? Could a government standard on occupational sustainability have real potency? Should financial incentives or penalties be introduced as rising energy costs do not seem to be enough of a deterrent?
Or should user control be entirely removed through complete building automation? Such potential solutions undoubtedly raise more issues and individual problems of their own and even if they were implemented, behavioural change improvements may still not result!
After all, such change will only emerge if you “drive a desire in the end user” (Paul Kerry, McLaren).
How new standards can respond to and incorporate the often conflicting requirements of energy, noise, community relations, biodiversity remains unclear.
The future of sustainability
What will sustainability look like in 25 years?
Our panellists' overview
We asked our panel of interviewees what they predict sustainability will look like in the UK in 25 years.
The resultant discussions highlight that while increased consideration would be given to ecology and biodiversity, energy was still seen as one of the dominant elements. It was felt that the energy crisis and climate change would drive innovation to ensure continued advancement in the sustainability sector.
The interviewees believed that designs were anticipated to “become smarter” with commercial buildings becoming very technical, automated and digitally enabled. Technological advancements in metering and monitoring will help building users to better understand consumption at the granular scale. However, it was noted that people will have to become more integrated with management systems.
While this is already happening to an extent especially among more enlightened developers, certain measures have already proved more successful than others. It was felt therefore that a need exists for diagnostic tools to become simpler to use and understand in order to provide more immediate and comprehensive solutions to consumption.
Despite this anticipation of increased automation, the panelists were keen to caution about over reliance on isolated, hi-tech solutions. Especially given the context that much of our existing housing stock will still be here in 25 years. They mused that this could mean that that existing issues not addressed propoerly now have the potential to become major problems in the future.
Finally, while the perceived cost of participation may continue to be a barrier to engagement, in general it was felt that BREEAM and the Code for Sustainable Homes would still act to leverage support for sustainability objectives. However, the consensus was that key sustainability issues still require more consistent consideration and urgent action by Government and thus the future pathway for the industry is not as clearly defined as one would like it to be.
At Greengage we work with our clients to deliver sustainable solutions
Greengage Environmental LLP
We are an environmental consultancy and our discipline is based on deep understanding of the built, natural and social environment.
We have extensive experience in facilitating the delivery of truly sustainable developments, taking a holistic approach to design development.
We work in partnership with our clients and we believe our approach is innovative, cost effective and no nonsense.
We use a range of tools such as BREEAM, CSH, LEED, Ska and sustainability checklists to benchmark performance.
We are also CIBSE Low Carbon Energy Assessors and undertake a wide range of services including Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and Display Energy Certificates (DECs).
The Editor
Mark Sallows was Marketing Director of Land Securities PLC during its transition to become a market facing full-service property company.
He was then responsible for Intelligence and Growth Strategy at private equity firm 3i PLC during its Global expansion phase. As part of his role he was responsible for research-led thought leadership delivered in partnership with The Economist.
Since then he has acted as a non-executive to SMEs including Greengage LLP.
Together with Nick Mason, he is also a founder of Turtl.co, a next-generation publishing platform.
Turtl.co
This reading experience was created and distributed with Turtl.
Turtl transforms functional reading experiences into entertaining ones, resulting in better engagement, conversion and insight. Turtl also collects and analyses data to deliver more powerful insights into content marketing and customer relationship management.