LEED EBOM vs. BREEAM In-Use (or Oranges vs. Carrots)
Oranges and Carrots are the same color, nutritious and good for you. But they are difficult to compare.
LEED’s Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance has a very similar relationship with BREEAM’s In-Use. Both systems provide an objective measurement of the sustainability of operating real estate – but that’s where the similarities end.
In-Use does not give an asset one certificate – there can be up to three, each with their own level.
Part 1 - Asset Rating – This certificate measures the sustainable performance of the building. Improvements to the score will generally require investment in the property.
Part 2 - Building Management Rating – This certificate measures the sustainable practices, policies and procedures of the building management. Scores are dependent on building management taking action in areas under their control.
Part 3 - Organizational Rating – This certificate measures the sustainable practices and policies of the users of the asset. Scores depend on the policies and actions of the tenant.
In essence, BREEAM gives one score to the building, another to the building manager and a third to the tenant. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, EBOM certification is dependent on the actions of the building manager and all of the tenants as well as the actual performance of the building.
Summary: In-Use certificates should be much easier to get than EBOM certificates.
As a property manager, I find In-Use quite appealing. I can set up a sustainable system, execute on it and get certificates proving that I’m doing everything within my control to be sustainable. Great for marketing, but I’m not so sure it achieves my aims. Does it add any value to my buildings? Am I missing an opportunity to make a difference?
If EBOM certification is more difficult to achieve, it’s because it is only possible with a community effort. Convincing the owner to spend money and the tenants to alter their behavior are difficult – but when we are successful we maximize the impact on the environment and the value of the building.
I’ll be writing more on the specifics over the course of the next month or so, in the meantime I’m curious what you think.
Do you have any experience with both rating systems? Is In-Use an “easy way out?” Why should we bother certifying existing buildings anyway?
GreenBuildingManager 
Before I say Aything I like to say Thank you for your agenda! We discuss same problems in Finland , concerning In-Use ( LEED and BREEAM) It is like we compare carrots and oranges. Anyway,Lets design and build more sustainable, greener, cleaner, safer and smarter buildings, we all people get profiable . MarkElg/CO2.fi
In most markets we can build new green buildings for a long time before we make a real impact – in Central Europe I estimate that 25% of the total stock could be sustainable in 2020.
If we want to make an impact we need to focus on making the existing stock as sustainable as possible.
Hi Michael,
So nice to meet you. I saw your post in our LinkedIn group – PFMI (Property and Facility Management Innovators). Welcome and we are so happy you are going to post your articles here. I think this is a worthwhile post that many folks probably are in need of understanding. IMHO, I think any effort to become efficient is worthy, no matter how, who or why. In so many cases, the PM or FM hands are tied and they do not always control the outcomes of their property, although so many of us try. Personally, I was not aware of the these various certifications and the breakdowns you illustrated. I really appreciate the information.
Thanks,
Linda
The more we fight to untie our hands the better our buildings will be. I hope at least a few property and facility managers are interested in this today – I’m pretty convinced that we will all be doing this in 5-10 years whether we like it or not.
Hi
We used Breeam in use on a temporary office as an exercise to see how we stack up. As we are building manager and tenant, we didn’t see the point of doing part 3, but strangely still got a certificate! The score was poor for this part as we hadn’t attempted the questions, but I presume their must be some overlap.
We felt penalised by not scoring anything in landscape and ecology (it is hardscaped and soft landscaping not really appropriate, possible or at least economically viable for temporary use)
The hardest bit to come to terms with was that the scoring is completely hidden. It took a great deal of effort to collect the info with no idea how we were likely to get on. Otherwise a good exercise giving us some things to think about when we build another temporary office.
In Use is a nice benchmarking exercise for sophisticated users on where they currently stand, but if you want (or need) a proven path to actually improve performance then EB: OM is definitely the way to go. Any existing building system that doesn’t require an energy audit (and can be done in four hours) seems a little suspect also (In Use). BIU is really cheap though. Did somebody say “You get what you pay for?”.