INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER 25
What are the Pros and Cons of certifi cation for gaining ‘credits’ in commercial buildings? Pro Con Both
Interestingly, while we gave our respondents other options for certifi cation of offi ces, including WELL, FITWEL, NABERS, German standard DGNB, and BREEAM In-Use, only WELL showed any signifi cant takeup across the sectors. In terms of the non offi ce commercial sectors, the other options
(retail, hotels, food and beverage, industrial, sports facilities, leisure, and healthcare) there was dominance from BREEAM, particularly in healthcare and F&B, where 45% of respondents saying they were certifying healthcare projects were using BREEAM in each case.
Priority design measures We asked respondents to choose and then rank which areas of buildings were the main priorities for their clients in sustainability- certifi ed projects, in commercial sector schemes. Unsurprisingly, ‘sustainable energy use’ came on top, with a total of 144 ranking points. Then came ‘good air quality,’ not far behind at 123. However, it was somewhat revealing that for clients, ‘natural light levels’ were at parity with ‘fabric performance’ (at 115 and 114 points), with several categories below them, showing the importance of light to users and their clients. ‘Biophilic design’ was also placed highly, at 101 points, although we did not break this down into the various potential characteristics that fall within this umbrella. The other categories, in descending order, were recycling, followed by ‘personal control over workplace environment’ (where staff are able to control light and temperature in their own area), ‘sustainable transport,’ ‘water,’ ‘diurnal balance/ circadian rhythms,’ ‘fi xtures and furniture,’ ‘user comfort,’ and lastly, ‘nourishment and fi tness facilities’ (with food provision and fi tness included as a factor in WELL and other standards). Most of our designers working in offi ce projects were using some form of code to guide sustainability in their projects. Half said they were using British Standards, but 43% were using British Council of Offi ces guidelines, and UKGBC guidance was being used by 36% – the same number as those choosing CIBSE guides on services. Slightly lower down was the number using RICS Guides – 35%.
Challenges of sustainability accreditation We asked our respondents what they believed were the pros and cons of certifi cation for gaining ‘credits’ in commercial buildings.
ADF FEBRUARY 2025
Positives chosen by respondents included the need to identify BREEAM credits early on in certifi ed projects
The joint largest ‘con’ picked by architects was the assertion that the credits approach ‘can mean undue emphasis on obtaining some possibly less relevant factors at expense of other more relevant.’ However, in a later question there was less clarity on whether the perceived trade offs which can occur between different design measures to achieve credits would ‘alter or constrain design aims’ – only 14% said this occurred in their experience, while 21% said it didn’t, and 65% said they were unsure. The other largest con was the ‘lack of embodied carbon credits’ currently offered in certifi cations, which was unambiguously seen as a negative for our respondents with 67% choosing it; compared to 33% saying it was a positive, presumably because it made accreditations more achievable. The general complexity of many accreditation processes was a negative for 53% of our cohort, and the length and complexity of the ‘checklist for design teams’ was picked by 47% as a disincentive.
Positives chosen included the need to identify BREEAM credits early on in projects (before RIBA Stage 2) for maximum credits to be obtained – picked by 53% of our respondents, making it the top ‘pro’ chosen. Other positives included ‘extra capital cost meaning an extra focus on the budget throughout the project, but interestingly this was also seen as a ‘con’ by 40%. Other ‘pros’ (that were picked by a third of our cohort) were the fact that the design targets within the sustainability accreditation process meant another thing which needed protection from value engineering in projects, but also the lack of fl exibility in criteria, as well as the aforementioned lack of requirements for an embodied carbon rating.
Practicalities of accreditation We asked designers whether they believed it was essential to have an assessor to work as a sustainability champion throughout the project, including onsite to “ensure contractors and subcontractors are delivering installations in accordance with the design.’ This
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
