The comparison of LEED and BREEAM to

find a universal way of rating sustainable

buildings.

Name: Jesper Menting

Student Number: 4020375
Research mentor: Siebe Broersma
Design mentor: Roel van de Pas

Delft University of Technology

Faculty of Architecture
Explorelab Studio 21

18th March 2016

Abstract

The purpose of this research paper is to find the main differences and similarities between the green
building certification programs BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Methodology) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Following this comparison
the question will be explored whether it is possible to unify both system to a universal building rating
system. To conclude there will be discussed if these labels could be used as design tools. The
expectations are that both systems are very alike, if their rating sections and methods are unified. It
is expected that these labels are difficult to use as design tools given their complexity.

The research is conducted by comparing the credits BREEAM and LEED use to award their points. To
do this it is necessary to unify the building sections or “themes” over which the credits are
distributed. Examples of themes are Energy, Water and Health. To get a broader view of the context
of the green building rating systems a literature study is performed. This will give more background
information about the certification programs and reflect upon other labels in this field.

The building sections from both BREEAM and LEED can be unified using the following distribution:
Energy, Site, Water, Health, Waste, Materials, Transport, Social Sustainability and Innovation &
Education. The credits belonging to discarded sections are placed within other sections. The rating
methods can be unified by calculating the weighting factor per credit, followed by calculating the
weighting factor per building section. The comparison shows that the content of both labels are very
much alike after this unification.

The research shows that considering the content it should be possible to unify both systems to a
universal rating system. It can be problematic that BREEAM and LEED are supported and developed
by different organizations. Both labels are difficult to use as design tools, as the large amount of
credits can have a limitative effect on the freedom of design teams.

2
Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
Background...................................................................................................................................... 4
Problem statement.......................................................................................................................... 4
Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Research question ........................................................................................................................... 4
Relevance ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Sign posting ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Methodology................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Definition of sustainability .............................................................................................................. 6
Building sections.............................................................................................................................. 6
Rating methods ............................................................................................................................... 7
Differences and similarities in credits ............................................................................................. 8
Label certified designers................................................................................................................ 12
Costs of project certification ......................................................................................................... 13
Organizations behind labels .......................................................................................................... 14
CASBEE and Living Building Challenge........................................................................................... 14
4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 17
5. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 18
6. References..................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 20

3
 1. Introduction
Background
Sustainability plays an important role in
today’s building industry. According to the
UNEP (United Nations Environment
Programme) buildings are responsible for 40%
of the global energy consumption, 25% of the
global water consumption and are responsible
for 1/3 of emitted greenhouse gases (UNEP,
2016). If we want to work towards a more
sustainable future architecture can play a
major role in this.
To do this we first need to define what
sustainable building exactly is. Over the last
two decades several green building
certification programs have emerged globally
to help giving this definition. A few examples
of these programs are BREEAM (Europe),
CASBEE (Japan), Green Star SA (South Africa)
and LEED (North America) (Kibert, 2013). By
giving guidelines and ratings these program
try to give their definition of what a
sustainable or ‘green’ building actually is.
Problem statement
The existence of so many different green
building labels makes it difficult to determine
what makes a building truly sustainable. How
can you compare a building which is rated
BREEAM Excellent with a building which is
rated LEED Platinum? Not only are their rating
methods different, they also rate a building on
different aspects (Van Doorn, 2012).
Objective
The general objective of this research is to find
the main differences and similarities between
the green building certification programs
BREEAM and LEED. It will also explore whether
it is possible to use a unified system and
whether it can be used as a design tool for
sustainable architecture. The expectation is
that the certification programs of BREEAM
and LEED are very much alike once their rating
methods are unified. By this is meant that
both labels would have the same way of
calculating a final score, using the same
sections, weighting factors and score
gradations (Certified, Gold, Platinum).
Research question
What are the main differences and similarities
between green building certification programs
BREEAM and LEED?
Can the systems of BREEAM and LEED be
unified to be used as one universal rating
method?
Can the unified system be used as a design
tool for sustainable architecture?
Relevance
If it is possible to find a universal method of
rating sustainable buildings, more
collaboration between countries and
continents can take place. In terms of the
effect of sustainability measures in
architecture it would be helpful if buildings
are rated equally. It should be taken into
account that depending on local climate or
culture different approaches should be
rewarded. For example, it doesn’t make sense
for a building to be rewarded for having a bike
shed in a country where nobody has a bicycle.
It would then be better to give more points for
use of green transport or proximity to public
transit.
It would also be positive if certification
programs were not only used as a rating
method, but also as a design tool. This will
help designers find techniques and methods
to design high-performing buildings in terms
of sustainability.
Sign posting
This paper will firstly describe the
methodology of the research. Then it will give
a summary of the results of the comparison
study between BREEAM and LEED. It will then
give the conclusions based on this
comparison. The recommendations will
elaborate on how these conclusions can be
beneficial to the green building industry.
4
 2. Methodology

To answer the research question and its sub
questions a comparison study will be used as
the main tool. For all questions that cannot be
answered by this comparison study a
literature study will be performed.
The literature will firstly elaborate on how
both BREEAM and LEED define sustainability.
For this their manuals and websites will be
consulted.
The comparison study will start with unifying
the rating methods of both labels. Once those
are brought to an equal system, the rating
sections will be unified. Per unified section the
credits will be compared to find out how they
differ from each other. Those differences will
be set out in a comparison chart, which can be
found in Appendix C.
The Results chapter will give a summary of the
comparison and literature studies. From these
studies the final conclusions will be drawn.
These conclusions will be used for the
recommendations which will connect the
research to the broader field of sustainable
building design.
In these recommendations Alijd van Doorn’s
Het duurzame ontwerp project is used to
reflect upon how sustainable ambitions can be
translated into the design process. This
literature and the results from the comparison
research will lead to a final discussion about
the future development of green building
certification programs.

To get a broader view of the world of green

building certification programs Charles J.
Kiberts Sustainable Construction: Green
Building Design and Delivery will be consulted.
This book is also used to find out more about
the organizations behind the programs
BREEAM and LEED.

Figure 1: Research Methodology. See Appendix A for a larger image.

5
 3. Results as on the future environment. They also state
that a building does not only have
environmental impact, but also social and
economic. To conclude they consider the
Definition of sustainability
environmental impact not only to be a case of
To be able to compare LEED and BREEAM as
energy, but for example also water, waste
sustainable building certification programs it is
materials and pollution.
relevant to look into how they define
sustainable or green building. The most
common definition of sustainability is
Brundtland’s “Development that meets the Building sections
needs of the present without compromising As the labels mention in their definition of
the ability of future generations to meet their sustainability a building’s environmental
own needs.” (United Nations, 1987). Most impact is more than just energy related
modern definitions of sustainability are impact. It also includes aspects such as water
derived from this concept. consumption, waste management, use of
material and site management. To make a
It is not easy to find LEED’s primary definition good comparison of LEED and BREEAM it is
of sustainability. It is neither mentioned in important to look into on which building
their LEED v4 Standard nor in their v4 User sections both labels rate, and unify those
Guide. A clear definition of green building is sections so that the results are comparable.
given by their parent organization USGBC
(United States Green Building Council). They The LEED certification system works with in
explain green building as an effort to amplify total 8 different sections:
the positive and mitigate the negative of a  Location and Transportation (LT)
building’s effects throughout its entire life  Sustainable Sites (SS)
cycle. This life cycle contains the planning,  Water Efficiency (WE)
design, construction and operation of  Energy and Atmosphere (EA)
buildings with several central considerations:
 Materials and Resources (MR)
energy use, water use, indoor environmental
 Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ)
quality, material section and the building’s
 Innovation (IN)
effect on its site (USGBC, 2014).
 Regional Priority (RP)
It is even more difficult to find BREEAM’s
These sections are used for every type of
definition of sustainable or green building. It is
newly constructed building. The amount of
not mentioned in their standard nor in their
points given per section are different
user manual. On their international website a
depending on the type of building. More will
short movie is published about the “Principles
be explained about this in the chapter Rating
of BREEAM”. It describes a sustainable
Methods.
solution as one that works now and for a long
time in the future. The triple bottom line of
sustainability includes social, economic and
environmental impacts, and a sustainable
development will address all three.
Environmental categories include: energy,
pollution, ecology, materials, waste, water
and transport (BREEAM, 2015).

Related to Brundtland’s definition they both

consider a building’s impact on current as well

6
The BREEAM certification system works with
in total 9 different sections:
 Management (MAN)
 Health & Wellbeing (HEA)
 Energy (ENE)
 Transport (TRA)
 Water (WAT)
 Materials (MAT)
 Waste (WST)
 Land Use (LE)
 Pollution (POL)
These sections are also used for every type of
newly constructed building. In contrary to
LEED the weighting factor per section is
always the same disregarding the type of
building.
To make a good comparison of the two labels
the sections will be unified. Some sections will
be renamed or lost, the credits belonging to
these sections will be moved to another
section.
After comparing both lists the decision is
made to use the following sections:
 Energy
 Site
 Water
 Health
 Waste
 Materials
 Transport
 Social sustainability
 Innovation & Education
For a more detailed diagram of the section
unification, see appendix A.
Rating methods
LEED and BREEAM don’t use the same rating
methods to certify a building. To be able to
make a good comparison it is necessary to
unify these methods.
Firstly it is interesting to look at which rating
classes are reachable with both labels. LEED
makes a gradual distinction between four
classes: LEED Certified (40-49 points), LEED
Silver (50-59 points), LEED Gold (60-79 points)
and LEED Platinum (80-110 points). A score of
39 points or less means no rating is achieved.
BREEAM works with rating classes in a
comparable way, only they are divided into
five gradations: Pass (30-44%), Good (45-54%),
Very Good (55-69%), Excellent (70-84%) and
Outstanding (85-110%). No certification is
achieved when the score is less than 30%.
When applying for a LEED certification it is
possible to collect a total of 110 points. Those
points are divided over the 8 different sections
mentioned earlier. Some credits are only
eligible for certain types of buildings. This
means an educational building can obtain
different credits compared to a hospital. The
points all have the same weighting factor (1
point = 0.91%). The result is that for instance
the section Location & Transportation has a
different weighting factor for schools (13.6%)
than for hospitals (8.2%).
The BREEAM rating method has a different
approach. In total a score of 110% is divided
over the 9 sections, each having their own
weighting factor. Regardless of what type of
building you are designing the sections always
keep the same weighting factor. Equal to LEED
some of the credits don’t apply to every type
of building. This doesn’t change the weighting
factor of the section, but does change the
weighting factor of the credits. For instance
the credit ‘MAT1: Construction Materials’
counts for 5.9% for schools, but for 7.7% for
industrial buildings.
Both labels give credits for innovation as well.
For this they also have their own approach.
LEED has a specific ‘INNOVATION’ credit which
gives points for achieving a credit from the
LEED Pilot Credit Library, achieving double the
credit requirements of an existing credit or
achieving a performance based on a strategy
not addressed in the LEED rating system. In
total 6 innovation points (5.5%) can be
obtained.
7
BREEAM gives the opportunity for obtaining
10 innovation points worth 1% each. These
innovation points are awarded when an
Exemplary performance is achieved by a
building. These performances belong to
specific credits, such as ‘Application
Renewable Energy’ and ‘Alternative Modes of
Transport’.

To be able to compare the two certification

programs both rating methods have to be
unified. We will do this by translating both
methods to a maximum score of 100%. With
the total score in mind we can then define the
weighting factors per credit.

For LEED this is quite easy. Since there is a Figure 2: BREEAM section division
total of 110 points to be obtained, each point
is worth 0.91%. This means a credit that gives
3 points like ‘Rainwater Management’ has a
weighting factor of 2.7%. Even though some
credits are moved to a different section, their
weighting factor remains the same.

For BREEAM this is more complicated because

every section has a different weighting factor.
Therefore 1 point in the section Energy can be
worth 0.7%, while a point in the section Land
Use & Ecology is worth 0.9%. When moving a
credit to another section its weighting factor
in the original section is maintained.

Figure 3: LEED section division

Differences and similarities in credits BREEAM LEED

This chapter will show the results from the
Energy 22% 28%
comparison study of BREEAM’s and LEED’s
credits. For an overview of the total Site 17% 13%
comparison see Appendix C. Water 6% 11%
Energy Health 16% 14%

LEED awards 31 points in their section energy Waste 7% 2%

which comes to 28% of the total. That makes Materials 13% 10%
this section by far the most important one. Transport 7% 11%
BREEAM gives this section a weighting factor
Social 1% 5%
of 22%. This makes it for BREEAM the largest
section as well, but the difference with other Innovation 11% 6%
sections is less big. Total 100% 100%
Figure 4: Unified sections

8
When looking into the credits you notice a few
similarities. Both LEED and BREEAM give
credits for optimizing the building’s energy
performance, advanced energy metering and
the use of renewable energy. The amount of
points given for the application of renewable
energy is relatively low (BREEAM: 2%, LEED:
2.7%).
There are some differences in the minor
credits given in this sections but they are not
significant. BREEAM gives extra credits for
energy efficient exterior lighting, minimization
air-infiltration loading platform and energy
efficient elevators/escalators. LEED gives
credits for participating in a demand response
program. As these credits also contribute in
optimizing the building’s energy performance
it is discussable whether they are necessary.
The biggest difference of this section is the
difference in weighting factors, where LEED
gives higher value than BREEAM. Most of the
credits are alike. According to the ‘Trias
Ecologica’ of Kees Duijvestein the generation
of renewable energy plays an important role
in sustainable building (Duijvestein, 1997). It is
notable that both labels give very few points
for this strategy.
Site
Both labels have different weighting factors
for this section. BREEAM gives 17% of its
credits in this section while LEED gives 13% of
its credits here.
Both labels give points for building on
previously developed or low-value land
(BREEAM: 4.5%, LEED: 1.8%). They also give
points for cleaning and building on
contaminated soil (BREEAM: 1.8%, LEED:
2.7%). Stimulating this will reduce the chance
that developers build on land with high
ecological value.
The section Site contains more credits that are
comparable to one another. These are:
protect and restore habitat for local plants
and animals, managing rainwater run-off on
site and minimizing light pollution.
There are also some differences in the credits
given. LEED gives credit (0.9%) for creating an
open space with a minimum of 30% of the
total site area. The same amount of points is
awarded to schools specifically when they
provide a site master plan. As this credit
stimulates future sustainable planning it
would be positive for any type of project.
LEED also provides points for heat island
reduction (1.8%). They define this effect as the
thermal absorption by hardscape as pavement
and buildings and its radiation to surrounding
areas. Other contributing factors include
vehicle exhaust, air-conditioners and street
equipment (USGBC, 2016). The points are
awarded when using for instance a high
reflective or green roof.
Another notable difference is BREEAM’s credit
for responsible management of the
construction site (4.5%). These credits are
moved from BREEAM’s section Management,
as LEED doesn’t have a comparable section.
LEED does have a prerequisite for construction
activity pollution prevention but it only refers
to national and local erosion and
sedimentation requirements.
It is positive that both labels give significant
credit for developing previously developed,
low-value and contaminated soil. The
protecting and restoring of habitat for local
plants and animals is also important. LEED’s
credit for creating a masterplan and BREEAM’s
credit for responsible management of the
construction site are recommendable to be
used by both labels. Most other credits seem
to be less significant and could have been
included in other credits.
Water
The biggest difference in the section Water is
the weighting factor given by both labels.
LEED’s gives a maximum of 12 points which
equals 11%. BREEAM gives a weighting factor
of 6% to this section.
Although both labels give points for reducing
indoor water consumption the amount of
9
points given by LEED is far larger (6%) than
BREEAM’s (2%). Both labels also give credits
for the metering and sub metering of water
consumption and reducing water-use for
irrigation. It is discussable whether both
credits don’t already contribute to a lower
overall water consumption.
The minor differences are BREEAM’s credits
for a leakage detection system, self-closing
water supply for toilets and LEED’s cooling
tower water credit. A notable difference is
BREEAM’s credit for water recycling. Although
the amount of points given is quite low (0.8%)
it can be said re-using water is a sustainable
measure. BREEAM gives this credit for both re-
using gray water as rainwater.
As said earlier the biggest difference for this
section is the weighting factor, where the
credits don’t differ a lot. The most notable
unique credit is BREEAM’s recycling of water,
but the amount of points given (0.8%) is very
low.
Health
Both BREEAM and LEED have almost the same
weighting factor (16 versus 14%) for the
section Health. Not only are the weighting
factors almost the same, both labels have
many similar credits.
They both give credits for sufficient
daylighting, quality views, quality interior
lighting, interior air quality, thermal comfort,
low-emitting materials and acoustics. As this
section contains many small credits there is
not one that stands out.
There are some differences in the credits
given. BREEAM has credits for preventing light
nuisance and applying purge ventilation. LEED
has credits for air quality during construction
and prohibiting smoking. As these differences
are so small it can be said both labels rate the
same in the section Health.
Waste
For this credit also counts that the biggest
difference is in weighting factor. BREEAM has
a specific section for Waste, LEED doesn’t.
Their credits that have to do with waste come
from the section Materials & Resources.
BREEAM gives 7% for Waste credits, LEED only
2%.
Both labels give points for managing
construction waste, the use of recycled
materials and providing space for recyclable
waste streams. So apart from the weighting
factor, the credits in the section Waste are
comparable.
Materials
The biggest difference in the section Materials
are the weighting factors as well. BREEAM
gives a weighting factor of 13% to this section,
while LEED only gives 10%. Both labels give
credits for using construction material with
low environmental impact. They also give
points for the responsible sourcing of
materials.
BREEAM has additional credits for designing
for robustness, designing for flexibility,
stimulating ease of maintenance and making a
life cycle cost analysis. LEED also has a credit
for the design for flexibility, but it only counts
for healthcare buildings. It would be positive
to let this credit count for other types of
public buildings as well.
Transport
Considering the weighting factors both
BREEAM (7%) and LEED (11%) rate about the
same for the section Transport. They also have
most of the credits in common: public
transport accessibility, surrounding density
and amenities and alternative modes of
transport.
BREEAM has two extra credits for creating a
travel information point and safe supply
delivery on-site. Obviously these are good
10
applications, but their factors are quite low but as this counts for only 0.9% it has a very
(0.7%) and are more additions than low contribution.
architectural interventions.

Social sustainability

For both labels goes that social sustainability

plays a role but it is a minor one. BREEAM has
only two credits belonging to this section
worth rounded off 1%, where LEED has two
credits worth 5%. It should be noted that
LEED’s credit for Regional Priority is counted
double, since it is about credits already scored
in other sections that have extra regional
value.

The fact that LEED has a credit for joint use of

facilities is positive. A multifunctional building
can be seen as sustainable since there are less
hours that the building is unoccupied. I think
the amount of points for this credit should be
higher and also included in the BREEAM
system.

BREEAM’s approach of giving incentive to talk

to the local population is a good strategy in
my opinion. A building is much more
supported when locals have had the chance to
be included in the design process. Again the
amount of points given for this credit is
relatively low.

Innovation & Education

BREEAM (11%) gives almost twice as much

points as LEED (6%) for Innovation. They have
different systems for awarding these points.
BREEAM gives the opportunity for scoring
exemplary performances at several credits.
Since these credits are all pre-determined, the
given freedom is relatively low.

LEED has a special pilot credit library for

scoring innovation points. Since these extra
credits are also predetermined the freedom is
restricted as well. LEED also gives the option
of scoring a point on a self-developed credit,

11
Label certified designers
The green building certification programs
BREEAM and LEED don’t only offer their credit
books and manuals, but have also developed
several label roles. These roles can be fulfilled
by members of the design teams or by
independent third party individuals.
BREEAM distinguishes two important
functions for the certification process: the
BREEAM Expert and the BREEAM Assessor.
The Expert advises stakeholders before and
during the design process and helps preparing
the assessment process. The Assessor
determines as an independent third party
whether the project meets the pursued
BREEAM standards.
A BREEAM Expert can either be working for
the pursuing organization or can be part of an
external consultancy. In the Netherlands he is
trained by the Dutch Green Building Council
by following a one-day course. The Expert is
not eligible to perform the BREEAM
assessment himself. For a project team it is
not compulsory to include a BREEAM Expert,
but it is recommended.
The BREEAM Assessor is a compulsory role in
the certification process. He is always part of
the project as an individual third party. The
training is also a one-day course, but is always
preceded by the BREEAM Expert training.
(DGBC, 2016)
LEED has developed several different
functions related to the LEED certification
process. The most common function is the
LEED Accredited Professional (AP). Other roles
are the LEED Green Associate (GA) and the
LEED AP Fellow.
The LEED Green Associate role is the most
basic credential related to the LEED
certification program. It can be earned by
anyone in the building or environmental field
by completing an exam organized by the
USGBC.
The LEED Accredited Professional is one level
higher than the LEED GA. It can only be
obtained by a professional who has worked on
a LEED certification process within the past
three years. There are five different sections
that a LEED AP can choose from for taking an
examination. Those are: Building Design +
Construction, Existing Buildings: Operation
and Maintenance, LEED for Homes and LEED
for Neighborhood Development.
The most prestigious role related to the LEED
certification program is the LEED AP Fellow.
This title can only be obtained by a LEED AP
with at least 10 years of experience in the
green building field. He must have made a
significant contribution to the field of green
building and sustainability at a regional,
national or international level. He can only be
nominated by another LEED AP with also at
least 10 years’ experience in the green
building field.
Assessment happens by reviewing documents
provided by the design team. This design team
exists out of a Project Team Administrator,
who should be a LEED AP. At the beginning of
a project he develops a project description,
assigns responsibility for LEED credits to the
project team members and then monitors the
submission of documentation to support the
LEED credits. (Kibert, 2013)
Except for the Team Administrator LEED
doesn’t oblige a team to have a LEED AP on
board. However, they do award an Innovation
credit for having LEED AP in the project team.
The credit counts for 1 LEED point that equals
0.9% of the total score. For BREEAM it is not
mandatory to have a BREEAM Expert on the
design team and they don’t give extra credits
for having one.
To achieve a BREEAM rating a third individual
party will check whether the building meets
the pursued credit goals. This is an
independent BREEAM Assessor who hasn’t
been involved in the design process.
12
A LEED certification proposal is always
handled by the GBCI (Green Building
Certification Institute). The pursued credit
goals are checked by reviewing the documents
provided by the design teams. It is difficult to
find whether a project is always visited by the
external assessor.
Costs of project certification
To make a complete comparison of the
BREEAM and LEED certification programs it is
necessary to look at the costs of certifying a
project. These costs will also be related to the
total costs of a building project and the
premium costs of sustainable building.
To register a building project for BREEAM
certification a distinction is made between
members and non-members of the DGBC.
Costs of a membership range from €400,- to
€5.000,- per year depending on the size of
your organization (BREEAM, 2016). In this case
the calculation is based on the prices for non-
members.
Registration of a building up to 5.000 m²
requires an initial fee of €1.800,-. For the use
of Innovation Credits €500,- per credit is
charged. The costs of hiring a BREEAM Expert
or Assessor are not included in these prices
and depend on what the external parties
demand.
LEED also makes a distinction between
members and non-members of the USGBC.
Costs of a USGBC membership range from
$300,- to $20.000,- (€270,- to €18.000,-)
annually. This is not depending on the size of
your organization but the offer of services
increase when a higher fee is paid.
The costs for a LEED registration are split in
two fees: the LEED registration and
certification fees. Registration is a flat fee paid
up front at the time of registration, the
certification fee is based on a project's rating
system and size. For non-members the
registration fee is $1.200,- (€1.100,-). The
certification fee costs for a building having
20.000 m² for non-members is $2.750,-
(€2.500,-). That makes a total of $3.950,-
(€3.600,-) for a LEED certification (USGBC,
2016).
The costs for BREEAM registration (€1.800,-)
are less than for LEED registration (€3.600,-),
but you have to take into account BREEAM
requires an external assessor and extra costs
for Innovation Credits. Compared to the total
building costs, estimated €2.000.000,- for a
2000 m² project (Bouwkostenkompas, 2011),
the difference is not that high.
Of course the certification fees are not the
only costs made when the ambition is a more
sustainable building. In general a building
using more efficient systems is more
expensive than a conventional design.
According to the report Green Building Costs
and Financial Benefits (Kats, 2003) the average
premium of LEED Certified (or higher)
buildings is slightly less than 2%. The main
components of these costs are the increased
architectural and engineering design time,
modeling costs and time necessary to
integrate sustainable building practices into
objects.
However, green buildings also provide
financial benefits that conventional buildings
do not. These benefits include lower energy,
waste and water costs, lower environmental
and emission costs, lower operational and
maintenance costs and increased productivity
and health. According to Kats the financial
benefits of a LEED Certified building are
between €490,- and €640,- per m² over a life-
span of 20 years (Kats, 2003). Obviously due
to the complexity of these calculations and for
instance varying energy prices these numbers
will always be different per region and over
time.
Comparing the certification fees of BREEAM
and LEED shows than a LEED certification is
more expensive. A BREEAM certification
however requires the hiring of a BREEAM
Assessor and extra costs for Innovation
Credits. Compared to the total costs of a
13
building project the difference is insignificant.
And when taken into account that a green
building can repay itself when properly
designed the extra costs can be justified.
Organizations behind labels
Although LEED is based on the foundations of
BREEAM, the comparison has showed it
developed some differences over the years.
This part will look into what organizations
were responsible for developing both
programs.
The green building certification program
BREEAM was launched in 1989 in the United
Kingdom by building research organization
BRE (Building Research Establishment). This
organization was founded in 1921 as the
Building Research Station, from which they
changed the name in 1972. It originally started
as a public organization, but was privatized in
1997. They however attempted to stay
independent by having the company owned
by the FBE (Foundation for the Built
Environment, from which the members came
from all the aspects of the building industry.
They are currently acting as a research based
consultancy, testing and training organization.
Their research aims mainly on materials,
energy, water, waste, fire and intelligent
building systems (BRE, 2016). In 1987 they
launched BREEAM, being the oldest building
assessment system and serving as the
foundation for many other rating systems,
including LEED (Kibert, 2013).
BREEAM-NL, the version used in this
comparison researched, is being managed in
the Netherlands by the DGBC (Dutch Green
Building Council). This organization was
founded in 2008 by the companies ABN Amro,
Redevco, Dura Vermeer, SBR and the City of
Amsterdam It is a non-profit organization with
currently over 400 organizations with a
membership. (DGBC, 2016)
Internationally it is part of the World Green
Building Council as an Established Member.
This links the organization directly to the
USGBC, the initiating organization behind
LEED. (DGBC, 2016)
The USGBC (United States Green Building
Council) was founded in 1993 to promote
sustainability in the building and construction
industry. Shortly after their foundation they
started developing the LEED certification
program. From 1995 until 1998 this took
place, where after in March 2000 the program
could be launched (USGBC, 2016).
This organization is different from BRE as it is
a non-governmental organization from origin.
This says little about the quality of the
produced programs, but it can be said the
process was more market-driven than
governmental-driven. However, BRE changed
into a private organization as well so will also
be heavily influenced by the market.
The USGBC works together with the GBCI
(Green Building Certification Institute) in
rating and certifying green buildings. This
organization was founded in 2008 to provide a
balanced third-party certification in order to
be recognized by the ANSI (American National
Standards Institute) (Kibert, 2013).
In that way the USGBC works a bit different
than the DGBC or the UKGBC (United Kingdom
Green Building Council). Where the second
two work with BREEAM as a product
developed by a third party (BRE) the USGBC
has developed its own tool, even though it
was based on the principles of BREEAM.
CASBEE and Living Building Challenge
Although BREEAM and LEED are considered
the most commonly used labels globally, they
are certainly not the only ones. In countries
like Japan (CASBEE), Australia (Green Star) and
Germany (DGNB/BNB) other labels have been
developed, although many of them are based
on the principles of BREEAM. To get a better
sense of context two other labels will be
discussed in this chapter. There has been
14
opted for CASBEE and Living Building
Challenge, since they have a different
approach for measuring sustainability than
BREEAM and LEED.
CASBEE
The Comprehensive Assessment System for
Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) is
the Japanese building assessment system. Its
development was started in 2001 by the Japan
Sustainable Building Consortium with the
assistance of the Japanese Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transportation (Kibert,
2013). It consists of a set of four basic
assessment tools, related to Pre-design, New
Construction, Existing Buildings and
Renovation (Endo, 2007). The key concept in
CASBEE is Building Environmental Efficiency
(BEE), which describes the ecological
efficiency of the built environment. It is the
ratio of building quality to building
environmental loadings.
CASBEE describes Building quality (Q) as the
amenities provided for building users and
consists of several sections:
Q1: Indoor environment
Q2: Quality of service
Q3: Outdoor environment on-site
Q: Total quality
Q= Q1 + Q2 +Q3
Equally, there are several categories of
environmental loadings (L) in CASBEE:
L1: Energy
L2: Resources and materials
L3: Off-site environment
L: Total loading
L = L1 + L2 + L3
The BEE score is the ratio of building quality to
building environmental loadings. The
calculation produces a number in the range of
0.5 to 3, where the highest score is the best.
The scores are divided in 5 classes, where 3.0
and higher is class S. Following classes are
class A (BEE of 1.5 to 3.0), B+ (BEE of 1.0 to
1.5), B- (BEE of 0.5 to 1.0) and C (BEE less than
0.5). (Kibert, 2013)
As of April 2015, a little more than 450
buildings are CASBEE certified in Japan (Japan
GreenBuild Council, 2015). That makes the
label a lot smaller than BREEAM (over
500.000) (BREEAM, 2016) and LEED (72.500)
(USGBC, 2016).
The label is developed by the Japan
Sustainable Building Consortium which is
composed of academic, industrial, and
government entities, specifically for Japanese
cultural, social, and political conditions. It was
developed in association with the Japanese
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and
Transportation, which is responsible for
developing building energy standards in Japan.
Living Building Challenge
In 2005 the Living Building Challenge (LBC)
was founded as an outgrowth of programs by
the Cascadia Green Building Council in the
northwestern United States and Western
Canada. It was created with the idea of
pushing the envelope of high-performance
building much further than already existing
labels like LEED and BREEAM. (Kibert, 2013)
In 2009 the Living Building Institute was
founded as an umbrella organization for the
LBC and its auxiliary projects. This changed
into the Living Future Institute (LFI) in 2011.
The Living Building Challenge rates a building
on 7 performance areas that they call petals.
They consist of Site, Water, Energy, Health,
Materials, Equity and Beauty. Within these 7
petals there are 20 imperatives that provide
specific guidance for achieving certification.
Unlike other labels LBC requires a project to
meet all the 20 imperatives for full
certification, not just a sufficient number to
gain adequate points for certification. If a
building is not able to meet all the imperatives
it is also possible to achieve a petal
certification. This means the project achieves
all the possible imperatives of one or more
specific petals.
15
Another aspect that distinguishes the Living
Building Challenge from other labels is the
registration process. A project pursuing
certification has to pass a 12 months
monitoring period to prove that it meets its
sustainability goals. This goes for both petal
and full certification.
According to the LFI’s website, to date 5
projects have achieved full certification.
(Living Future Institute, 2016) 21 projects have
achieved petal certification, and over 70 are
currently in the 12-months monitoring
process. (Kibert, 2013)
The LBC was originally presented by Jason F.
McLennan to the Cascadia Green Building
Council in 2005. The Cascadia Green Building
Council is a unique organization in the sense
that it represents both the USGBC (United
States Green Building Council) and the Canada
Green Building Council.
project to have its own specific solution. In my
opinion this is a better way of rating a project,
because not every building needs an energy
efficient elevator or loading platform with
minimized air infiltration to be sustainable.
Another difference is the moment of awarding
the green building certification. A Living
Building Challenge is only granted after the
building has been monitored for a period of 12
months. This makes sense because a building
will perform differently during different
seasons. It is better to measure a building’s
actual performance than the predicted
performance after the building has just been
completed. It might even be better to give a
building a regular check-up (yearly) to make
sure a building is performing just as calculated
in the design process.

Currently the Cascadia Building Council is also

controlled by the LFI. In addition to the Living
Building Challenge they are responsible for the
Living Community Challenge and the Living
Product Challenge, that rate designs on
smaller and larger scale levels. (Living Future
Institute, 2016)

Conclusion
The green building certification programs
CASBEE and Living Building Challenge have a
different approach on rating a project’s
sustainability than BREEAM and LEED. Instead
of mainly focusing on a building’s
environmental loadings they put much
emphasis on the building’s added quality. It
makes sense to look at a building that way,
because it reduces the philosophy of ‘doing
less bad’ and stimulates the idea of ‘doing
more good’.

The Living Building Challenge is different in a

way that they give design teams more
freedom in how they want to reach
sustainability. Instead of predefining the
applicable credits per section they allow a

16
 4. Conclusion
If we want to work towards a more
sustainable future it is important for our
architecture to adapt as well. Green building
certification programs like BREEAM and LEED
help us defining and measuring what a
sustainable building actually is. This research
is focused on finding the main differences and
similarities between both systems, and
whether they could be unified to be used as a
universal method.
Both labels make it very hard to find their
exact definition of sustainability. Their
websites show that they both consider a
building’s impact on the current as well as on
the future environment. They also state that a
building does not only have environmental
impact, but also social and economic.
Most of the building rating sections of
BREEAM and LEED overlap. To make both
labels comparable some credits have to be
moved to existing or new sections. These
modifications can be seen in Appendix B.
Their rating methods are slightly different.
LEED awards a maximum score of 110 points,
where there is a gradual distinction between
four classes. BREEAM awards a total score of
110% and makes a gradual distinction
between five classes.
The rating methods can be unified by
calculating the weighting factor per credit.
Those are added to find the weighting factor
per building section. The main differences are
that LEED has higher weighting factors for the
sections Energy and Water, where BREEAM
has more points for Site and Innovation.
In general the credits from both labels don’t
differ much from each other. In the section
Energy it is notable that both labels give very
few points for the generation of renewable
energy. It is positive that LEED gives points for
creating a future masterplan, where
BREEAM’s credit for responsible management
of the construction site is also beneficial. In
the sections Water, Health, Waste and
Transport both labels have nearly the same
credits. In the section Material BREEAM has
credits for robust and flexible building, which
in my opinion is very sustainable. Both labels
have very low weighting factors for Social
Sustainability. Where LEED has a credit for
joint use of facilities, BREEAM gives points for
engaging with the local community at the start
of a design project. BREEAM gives Innovation
points for achieving exemplary performances
at specific credits, LEED has a special pilot
credit library.
Both labels have roles related to their
certification programs. Where BREEAM makes
a distinction between the Expert and Assessor,
LEED has three different roles (LEED GA, LEED
AP and LEED Fellow AP). LEED gives points for
including a specialist in the design team, which
obviously stimulates people to become LEED
specialist. Different is that BREEAM requires
an Assessor to check whether the building
meets all the pursued credits, where LEED
checks a design and building documents sent
to their assessment partner (GBCI).
The costs of a LEED certification for non-
members for a 2000 m² project are slightly
higher than a BREEAM certification, €3.600,-
versus €1.800,-. However they don’t include
the costs of a BREEAM Assessor and the costs
for Innovation credits. These costs, including
the extra costs that sustainable measures can
bring, can be earned back over time by lower
energy, waste and water costs. Increased
productivity and health can also play a role in
this.
Considering the content of both labels there
shouldn’t be a reason why they can’t be
modified to a universal system. However, they
are supported by different organizations
(DGBC and USGBC) that play the main role in
developing and awarding the certifications.
The next chapter Recommendations will go
more into the future development of green
building certification programs.
17
 5. Recommendations
The comparison of the green building
certification programs BREEAM and LEED
shows that content-wise both labels are very
much alike. Considering this it would be
possible to join both systems to create a
universal rating system, making it easier to
compare the sustainability level of building
worldwide. Problematic is that both systems
are supervised by different organizations, with
different interests and covering different
regions. A solution can be to develop an
assessment tool which is developed by an
independent third party and supported by the
national green building councils. In fact the UK
Green Building Council and the Dutch Green
Building Council already work this way with
BREEAM which is developed by BRE.
Being meant as reflective assessment tools
BREEAM and LEED are difficult to use as tools
in the design process. A commonly used
strategy is the aiming for a minimum
certification score (e.g. BREEAM Pass or
BREEAM Good) as a sustainability goal. This
strategy however also has its downsides. One
of the disadvantages of this approach is that
the aiming for a certain score takes away the
incentive of doing better that this standard.
Related to this is the development of tools
that make it possible to calculate the perfect
price/score ratio (Van Doorn, 2012). It is
questionable whether this is the way we want
to design greener buildings in the future.
In Het duurzame ontwerp project Van Doorn
suggests using BREEAM’s building section
division as a way to structure the PvE
(program requirements). This way
sustainability becomes an integral part of the
design process where the design team has
freedom to decide how to be sustainable on
themes like for example energy, water and
materialization. A project where this strategy
is applied is the municipal office in Venlo,
where they used a thematic structure based
on the Cradle to Cradle concept to formulate
their own sustainability goals.
The comparison research shows that both
BREEAM and LEED rate buildings over nearly
the same sections. There are some sections in
which they differ but when credits are moved
a universal section division can be created.
This research suggest the following building
themes:
 Energy
 Site
 Water
 Health
 Waste
 Materials
 Transport
 Social sustainability
 Innovation and Education
These themes can be used in the design
process to create a sustainable list of
requirements as a starting point. By setting
one or more goals per building section a
comprehensive sustainable design approach
can be possible. This also gives design teams
more freedom in how they want to reach a
high sustainability level.
A system that currently works like this is the
previously discussed Living Building Challenge.
They distinguish several building sections and
set one or more goals per section that a Living
Building should meet. After the building has
been used for a year and measurements show
that the building performs like it is designed,
the label is awarded.
Although their goals are very ambitious (105%
self-generated energy, 100% self-captured
water) this might be the right way of designing
and assessing green buildings in the future.
There must be a way of setting different goals
for buildings that have more difficulties being
self-sufficient (high urban areas) than
buildings have more space (rural areas). It can
result in a diverse way of designing greener
buildings, where specific locations result in
different sustainable solutions.
18
 6. References
Bibliography
Bouwkostenkompas. (2011).
Kenkgetallenkompas Bouwkosten.
Retrieved from
www.bouwkostenkompas.nl:
http://www.bouwkostenkompas.nl/d
wnl/VoorbeeldKKB2011.pdf
BRE. (2016). History. Retrieved from
www.bre.co.uk:
http://www.bre.co.uk/history
BREEAM. (2015). Resources. Retrieved from
www.breeam.com:
http://www.breeam.com/resources
BREEAM. (2016). BREEAM. Retrieved from
www.breeam.com.
Council, J. G. (2015). CASBEE Statistics.
Retrieved from CASBEE:
http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english
/statistics.htm
DGBC. (2016). BREEAM Trainingen. Retrieved
from DGBC website:
https://www.dgbc.nl/trainingen
DGBC. (2016). Internationaal. Retrieved from
www.dgbc.nl:
https://www.dgbc.nl/content/internat
ionaal
DGBC. (2016). Organisatie. Retrieved from
www.dgbc.nl:
https://www.dgbc.nl/content/organis
atie
Duijvestein, K. (1997). Ecologisch bouwen.
Delft: Faculty of Architecture TU Delft.
Endo, J., Murakami, S., & Ikaga, T. (2007).
Application of a Building
Environmental Assessment, CASBEE,
and its influence on the building
market.
Kats, G. H. (2003). Green Building Costs and
Financial Benefits. Westborough:
Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative.
Kibert, C. J. (2013). Sustainable Construction;
Green Building Design and Delivery.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Living Future Institute. (2016). Certified Project
Case Studies. Retrieved from Living
Future: http://living-
future.org/casestudies
UNEP. (2016). Why buildings. Retrieved from
www.unep.org:
http://www.unep.org/sbci/AboutSBCI
/Background.asp
United Nations. (1987). Our Common Future -
Brundlandt Report. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
USGBC. (2014). What is green building?
Retrieved from www.usgbc.org:
http://www.usgbc.org/articles/what-
green-building
USGBC. (2016). Certification Fees. Retrieved
from www.usgbc.org:
http://www.usgbc.org/cert-
guide/fees#bdc
USGBC. (2016). Glossary. Retrieved from
www.usgbc.org:
http://www.usgbc.org/glossary/39#let
terh
USGBC. (2016). Green Building Facts.
Retrieved from www.usgbc.org:
http://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-
building-facts
USGBC. (2016). History. Retrieved from
www.usgbc.org:
http://www.usgbc.org/about/history
Van Doorn, A. (2012). Het duurzame ontwerp
project. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SUN.
19
Appendices

20
Appendix A
This is the research methodology used to answer the research question and its sub
questions. The comparison study shows the differences and similarities between
BREEAM and LEED, a literature study is used to place the results in a broader
context.
 Main research question
How do the rating systems of LEED and BREEAM differ
from each other and can both systems be unified to a
universal system?

Definition Rating method Credits Organization Conclusions

Literature Comparison study Literature Literature

How is sustainability defined by
the different labels?
On what sections do the systems
rate?
(energy, water, waste)
Which rating methods do the
systems apply?
(points, percentages)
What are the most important
similarities between the credits of
the two labels?
What are the most striking
differences between the credits of
the two labels?
Are label certified designers
involved in the design process?
What are the costs of registering a
project?
Who are the initiating
organizations of the systems?
What are conclusions/
recommendations on all aspects?
Can both systems be unified to a
universal system?
Can this system be used as a
design tool for sustainable
architecture?
Appendix B
This appendix shows how the building sections or themes are unified to make a
comparison research possible. The credits belonging to discarded sections are
move to other sections.
 BREEAM LEED UNIFIED

Management - -

Pollution - -

Waste Waste
Materials & Resources
Materials Materials

Indoor Environmental
Health Health
Quality

Energy Energy & Atmosphere Energy

Transport Location & Transportation Transport

Land-use & Ecology Sustainable Sites Site

Water Water Efficiency Water

- Regional Priority Social sustainability

- Innovation Innovation & Education

Appendix C
This appendix shows the comparison research conducted to get to the discussed
results. The research is structured in the 9 building sections from Energy to
Innovation. Comparable credits from BREEAM and LEED are linked with color
codes.
Energy
BREEAM (22%)
ENE1: Energy efficiency
To design buildings with an as low as possible CO²
emission of primary energy use during use fase.
Points: 15 / 10.18%
ENE2A: Submetering energy consumption
The application of submetering of both area zones in
the building and large consumption groups to monitor
and control energy usage.
Points: 2 / 1.36%
ENE2B: Submetering energy consumption
(dwellings)
The application of a monitoring system for energy
usage to monitor and control energy usage.
ENE4: Energy efficient exterior lighting
Reducing energy consumption and CO² emission by
applying energy efficient exterior lighting.
Points: 1 / 0.68%
LEED (28%)
EA PRE1: Fundamental Commissioning and
Verification Required
To support the design, construction and eventual
operation of a project that meets the owner’s project
requirements for energy, water, indoor environmental
quality and durability.
EA PRE2: Minimum Energy Performance required
To reduce the environmental and economic harms of
excessive energy use by achieving a minimum level of
energy efficiency for the building and its systems.
EA PRE3: Building-Level Energy Metering Required
To support energy management and identify
opportunities for additional energy savings by tracking
building-level energy use.
EA PRE4: Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Required
To reduce stratospheric ozone depletion.
EA1: Enhanced Commissioning
To further support the design, construction and
eventual operation of a project that meets the owner’s
project requirements for energy, water, indoor
environmental quality and durability.
Points: 6 / 5.45%
EA2: Optimize Energy Performance
To achieve increasing levels of energy performance
beyond the prerequisite standard to reduce
environmental and economic harms associated with
excessive energy use.
Points: 16 / 14.55%
EA3: Advanced Energy Metering
To support energy management and identify
opportunities for additional energy savings by tracking
building-level and system-level energy us.
EA4: Demand Response
To increase participation in demand response
technologies and programs that make energy
generation and distribution systems more efficient,
increase grid reliability, and reduce greenhouse gas
emmissions.
Points: 2 / 1.82%
 BREEAM LEED
ENE5: Application renewable energy EA5: Renewable Energy Production
To stimulate application of renewable energy in the To reduce the environmental and economic harms
direct environment. associated with fossil fuels energy by increasing self-
Points: 3 / 2.04% supply of renewable energy.
Points: 3 / 2.73%

ENE6: Minimalization of air infiltration loading / EA6: Enhanced Refrigerant Management

unloading platform To reduce ozone depletion and support early
Design and application of loading / unloading compliance with the Montreal Protocol while
platforms with minimal loss of heat and cold. minimizing direct contributions to climate change.
Points: 1 / 0.68% Points: 1 / 0.91%

ENE7A: Energy efficient cold storages
The application of energy efficient storages where
products are saved chilled or deep-frozen.
Points: 1 / 0.68%
EA7: Green Power and Carbon Offsets
To encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions through the use of grid-source, renewable
energy technologies and carbon migitation projects.
Points: 2 / 1.82%

ENE7B: Enery efficient cold storages (shops and

lodging)
The application of energy efficient storages where
products are saved chilled or deep-frozen.
Points: 2

ENE8: Energy efficient elevators

The application of energy efficient and user adapted
elevators.
Points: 2 / 1.36%
ENE9: Energy efficient escalators
The application of energy efficient escalators and
travelators.
Points: 1 / 0.68%
ENE26: Guarantee of thermal quality building
envelope.
To stimulate that buildings are being build as designed
and realised with lowest possible CO² emission.
Points: 2 / 1.36%

MAN1: Performance ensurance

To stimulate a good way of ensuring perfomance
quality of installations so that optimal functioning
under user conditions are guaranteed.
Points: 3 / 2.25%
 BREEAM LEED
POL1: GWP of refrigerants for climatizing
To reduce the contribution to climate change
by stimulating the use of refrigerants with low
environmental impact.
Points: 1 / 0.83%

POL2: Impact of refrigerants

To reduce the level of greenhouse and ozone
depleting gas emissions arising from the leakage of
refrigerants from building systems.
Points: 2 / 1.66%

POL3: GWP of refrigerants for cooling storage

To reduce the contribution to climate change
by stimulating the use of refrigerants with low
environmental impact.
Points: 1 / 0.83%
Conclusions
Similarities

BREEAM and LEED both give credits on the following aspects:

• Building’s energy performance (BREEAM: 10.2%, LEED: 14.6%).

• Advanced energy (sub)metering.
• Using renewable energy.

Note: LEED gives 1.8% extra credits for the use of grid-source renewable energy for at least 5 years.
BREEAM and LEED both give points for the generation of green energy, but the level of credit (~2.5%) is
relatively low.

Differences

BREEAM gives credit for:

• Energy efficient exterior lighting.

• Minimalization air-infiltration loading/unloading platform.
• Energy efficient elevators/escalators.
• Guarantee of thermal quality envelope.

Since all of these aspects influence the overall energy performance of the building, one can argue whether
it’s necessary to have all these specific points.

LEED gives credit for:

• Fundamental and enhanced commissioning.

• Participating in a demand response program.
• Reduced use of refrigerants.

The “fundamental and enhanced commissioning” of the building is comparable to BREEAM’s “Guarantee of
thermal quality envelope”, except that LEED’s version covers all the project’s requirements while BREEAM
only evaluates the building envelope.

Conclusion

The biggest difference is that BREEAM gives only 22% of their points for sustainable energy performance.
LEED gives 28% which is almost 1.5 times more.

In overall the labels are very much alike when it comes to credits in the category Energy. Half of the
category’s points are given for the building’s energy performance. It is remarkable that LEED gives
maximum points for an energy performance optimalization of 50%, where BREEAM gives maximum points
for an optimalization of 100%.

Both labels add credits for smaller aspects already contributing to this energy performance. It is discussable
whether this is necessary. The amount of points given for generating your own renewable energy is
relatively low (~2.5%).
Site

BREEAM (17%) LEED (13%)

PRE1: Construction activity pollution prevention
To reduce pollution from construction activities by
controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and
airborn dust.

PRE2: Environmental site assessment

To protect the health of vulnerable populations by
ensuring that the site is assessed for environmental
contamination and that any environmental
contamination has been remediated.

LE1: Re-use of land SS1: Site assessment

To stimulate building on reclaimed or low-ecological To assess site conditions before design to evaluate
value land. sustainable options.
Points: 5 / 4.54% Points: 1 / 0.91%

LE2: Contaminated soil SS2: Protect or restore habitat

The realization of projects on locations with To conserve existing natural areas and restore
contaminated soils. damaged areas to provide habitat and promote
Points: 2 / 1.82% biodiversity.
Points: 2 / 1.82%

LE3: Plants and animals on building location SS3: Open space

To stimulate actions that intend to preserve plants and To create exterior open space that encourages
animals during building. interaction with the environment, social interaction,
Points: 1 / 0.91% passive recreation and physical activities.
Points: 1 / 0.91%

LE4: Plants and animals in local area SS4: Rainwater management

To stimulate actions that attract local plants and To reduce runoff volume and improve water quality
animals to the new building and area. by replicating the water system of the site, based on
Points: 2 / 1.82% historical conditions and local ecosystems.
Points: 3 / 2.73%

LE6: Shared use by plants and animals on long
term
To stimulate maintenance of the building and open
space to guarantee shared use by plants and animals
Points: 1 / 0.91%
SS5: Heat island reduction
To minimize effects on microclimates and human and
wildlife habitats by reducing heat islands.
Points: 2 / 1.82%

LE9: Efficient use of land SS6: Light pollution reduction

To stimulate efficient use of land by reducing built To increase night sky access, improve nighttime
surface. visibility, and reduce the consequences of
Points: 2 development for wildlife and people.
Points: 1 / 0.91%
 BREEAM
POL6: Rainwater run-off
The prevention, reduction and delay of rainwater run-
off to public sewers to minimize the risk of flooding
and pollution.
Points: 3 / 2.50%
POL7: Minimalizing light pollution
To guarantee that outdoor lighting is used only when
necessary, and that light pointing to adjacent sites and
the sky is minimized.
Points: 1 / 0.83%
POL8: Noise attenuation
To reduce the likelihood of noise, arising from fixed
installations on the new development, affecting nearby
noise-sensitive buildings.
Points: 1 / 0.83%
MAN2: Construction site and area
To stimulate responsible management of the
construction site and its influence on the surroundings.
Points: 2 / 1.50%
MAN3: Construction site environmental impact
To stimulate responsible management of construction
site in terms of sustainable use of material, reducing
energy use and reducing pollution.
Points: 4 / 3.00%
LEED
SS7: Site master plan
To ensure that the sustainable site benefits achieved
by the project continue, regardless of future changes
in programs or demographics.
Points: 1 / 0.91 %
SS8: Tenant design and construction guidelines
To educate tenants in implementing sustainable design
and construction features in their tenant improvement
build-outs.
Points: 1
SS9: Places of respite
To provide patients, staff, and visitors with the health
benefits of the natural enivronment by creating
outdoor places of respite on the healthcare campus.
Points: 1
SS10: Direct exterior acces
To provide patients and staff with the health
benefits associated with direct access to the natural
environment.
Points: 1
LT1: LEED for Neighborhood Development Location
To avoid development on inappropriate sites. To
reduce vehicle distance traveled. To enhance livability
and improve human health by encouraging daily
physical activity.
Points: 16
LT2: Sensitive land protection
To avoid the development of environmentally sensitive
lands and reduce the environmental impact from the
location of a building on a site.
Points: 2 / 1.82%
LT3: High-priority site
To encourage project location in areas with
development constraints and promote the health of
the surrounding area.
Points: 3 / 2.73%
Conclusions
Similarities

BREEAM and LEED both give credit on the following aspects:

• Building on previously developed or low-value land (B: 4.5%, L: 1.8%)

• Cleaning and building on contaminated soil (B: 1.8%, L: 2.7%)
• Managing rainwater run-off on site (B: 2.5%, L: 2.7%)
• Creating space for protecting and restoring habitat for local plants & animals (B: 2.7%, L: 1.8%)
• Minimalizing light-pollution (B: 0.8%, L: 0.9%)

Differences

LEED gives credit for:

• Creating an open space of at least 30% of the site area (0.9%)

• Reducing the heat-island effect (give definition) (1.8%)
• LEED gives specific credits for schools when:

1. Creating a masterplan for future development (0.9%)

2. Sharing building with local community for non-school events and functions (moved to Social)

BREEAM gives credit for:

• Responsible management of the construction site (4.5%)

Conclusions

For both labels the section Site contains a lot of small credits. They both give value for building on low-
value or contaminated land. They also give credits for creating space for local flora and fauna.

LEED gives specific credits for developing a masterplan for future development. Although the amount
of credits is very low it is good they value this. BREEAM gives credit for responsible and sustainable
management of the construction site (moved from original section Management). The prerequisite LEED
has for this doesn’t say much about this.
Water

BREEAM (6%) LEED (11%)

WE PRE1: Outdoor Water Use Reduction Required
To reduce outdoor water consumption by using no
irrigation, or reducing irrigation water requirement by
30% from baseline.

WE PRE2: Indoor Water Use Reduction Required

To reduce indoor water consumption by 20% from
baseline.

WE PRE3: Building-Level Water Metering Required

To support water management and identify
opportunities for additional water savings by tracking
water consumption.

WAT1A: Water consumption WE1: Outdoor Water Use Reduction

To minimize the use of water by applying water saving To reduce outdoor water consumption by at least 50%
or waterless applications. from baseline.
Points: 3 / 2.25% Points: 2 / 1.82%
WAT1B: Water consumption (dwellings) WE2: Indoor Water Use Reduction
To minimize the use of water by applying water saving To reduce indoor water consumption by 25%-50%
or waterless applications. from baseline.
Points: 2 Points: 7 / 6.36%
WAT2: Water Metering WE3: Cooling Tower Water Use
To ensure water consumption can be monitored and To conserve water used for cooling tower makeup
managed. By doing this reduced water consumption while controlling microbes, corrosion, and scale in the
will be stimulated. condenser water system.
Points: 1 / 0.75% Points: 2 / 1.82%

WAT3: Leakage detection main water system
To reduce the consequences of large water leakages
which otherwise would have remained unnoticed.
Points: 1 / 0.75%
WE4: Water Metering Subsystems
To support water management and identify
opportunities for additional water savings by tracking
water consumption.
Points: 1 / 0.91%

WAT4: Self-closing water supply toilets

To reduce the consequences of large water leakages
which otherwise would have remained unnoticed.
Points: 1 / 0.75%
 BREEAM LEED
WAT5: Water recycling
The application of a gray water capturing and re-use
system for flushing toilets and recycling drinking water
consumption.
Points: 1 / 0.75%
WAT6: Irrigation systems
To reduce the use of drinking water for irrigation of
greening.
Points: 1 / 0.75%
WAT7: Car wash service
To minimalize the use of drinking water by car wash
services.
Points: 2
Conclusions
Similarities

BREEAM and LEED both give credits on the following aspects:

• Reducing indoor water consumption. (BREEAM: 2.25%, LEED: 6.36%)

• Reducing water-use for irrigation.
• Metering and submetering of water consumption.

It is remarkable that LEED gives 3 times as much points for reducing indoor water consumption, while their
standards are higher to (25% - 50% water reduction).

Differences

BREEAM gives credit for:

• Leakage detection main water system.

• Self-closing water supply toilets.
• Water recycling (0.75%)

LEED gives credit for:

• Cooling tower water use.

Although BREEAM gives some points for capturing and recycling gray water, the amount of points awarded
(0.75%) is insignificant.

Conclusion

The biggest difference is that BREEAM gives only 6% of their points for sustainable water management.
LEED gives 11%, almost 2 times as much.

Both systems give points for reducing indoor water consumption. It is remarkable that LEED gives 3 times
the amount of points that BREEAM gives for reducing water use. Both systems give credit for metering and
submetering of water consumption. This is good because by monitoring the water use adjustments can be
made when the building is already in use.

BREEAM gives a small amount of points for the capturing and re-using of gray water. This is remarkable
because being as much self-sufficient as possible in water consumption can be noted as sustainability.
BREEAM gives credits for a leakage detection system. This is good because an underground leakage is very
wasteful but difficult to note.
Health

BREEAM (16%) LEED (14%)

EQ PRE1: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance
Required
To contribute to the comfort and well-being of
building occupants by establishing minimum standards
for indoor air quality (IAQ).

EQ PRE2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control

Required
To prevent or minimize exposure of building
occupants, indoor surfaces, and ventilation air
distribution systems to environmental tobacco smoke.

EQ PRE3: Minimum Acoustic Performance

Required
To provide classrooms that facilitate teacher-to-
student and student-to-student communication
through effective acoustic design.

HEA1: Daylighting EQ1: Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies

To provide interior spaces with sufficient daylighting To promote occupants’ comfort, well-being and
for the benefit of visual performance and wellbeing. productivity by improving indoor air quality.
Points: 1 / 1.07% Points: 2 / 1.82%

HEA2: View EQ2: Low-Emitting Materials

To stimulate that working spaces have quality views. To reduce concentrations of chemical contaminants
To the purpose of visual comfort and to prevent a that can damage air quality, human health,
monotonous indoor experience. productivity and the environment.
Points: 1 / 1.07% Points: 3 / 2.73%

HEA3: Preventing light nuisance
To prevent light nuisance in indoor spaces caused by
reflection or glare by applying solar shading.
Points: 1 / 1.07%
EQ3: Construction Indoor Air Quality Management
Plan
To promote the well-being of construction workers
and building occupants by minimizing indoor air
quality problems associated with construction and
renovation.
Points: 1 / 0.91%

HEA4: High frequency lighting EQ4: Indoor Air Quality Assessment

To improve visual comfort by applying high frequency To establish better indoor air in the building after
lighting in interior spaces. construction and during occupancy.
Points: 1 / 1.07% Points: 2 / 1.82%

HEA5: Artificial lighting interior and exterior EQ5: Thermal Comfort

To ensure that artificial lighting guarantees a high level To promote occupants’ productivity, comfort and well-
of visual comfort both indoor and outdoor. being by providing quality thermal comfort.
Points: 1 / 1.07% Points: 1 / 0.91%
 BREEAM LEED
HEA6: Light control EQ6: Interior Lighting
To ensure that building users can easily control To promote occupants’ productivity, comfort and well-
lighting in every working space in the building. being by providing high-quality lighting.
Points: 1 / 1.07% Points: 2 / 1.82%

HEA7: Purge ventilation EQ7: Daylight

An extra possibility for users to (temporarily) ventilate To connect building occupants with the outdoors,
with outdoor air, in addition to installed ventilation reinforce circadian rhythms and reduce the use of
systems. electrical lighting by introducing daylight into the
Points: 1 / 1.07% space.
Points: 3 / 2.73%
HEA8: Internal air quality EQ8: Quality Views
To stimulate a healthy interior climate by sufficient To give building occupants a connection to the natural
ventilation with air that is free of pollution from either outdoor environment by providing quality views.
indoor or outdoor sources. Points: 1 / 0.91%
Points: 2 / 2.14%

HEA9: Volatile organic compounds EQ9: Acoustic Performance

To stimulate a healthy indoor air quality by using To provide workspaces and classrooms that
low VOC-emitting materials as building and finishing promote occupants’ well-being, productivity, and
materials. communications through effective acoustic design.
Points: 1 / 1.07% Points: 1 / 0.91%

HEA10: Thermal comfort

To guarantee thermal comfort by simulating thermal
situations in the design phase.
Points: 2 / 2.14%

HEA11: Thermal control

To provide the possibility for indoor thermal control by
the users of the building.
Points: 1 / 1.07%

HEA13: Acoustics
To prevent noise disturbance by applying
soundproofing in the building.
Points: 1 / 1.07%
HEA14: Private outdoor space
To improve living standards by providing a private
outdoor space.
Points: 1
HEA15: Accessibility
To stimulate that dwellings are accessible for as many
targets groups as possible.
Points: 2
POL4: NOx emissions
To encourage the supply of space heat and/or hot
water from a system that minimises NOx emissions,
and therefore reduces pollution of the local
environment.
Points: 1%
Conclusions
Similarities

BREEAM and LEED both give credits on the following aspects:

• Sufficient daylighting (B: 1.1%, L: 2.7%).

• Quality views. (B: 1.1%, L: 0.9%)
• Quality interior lighting. (B: 3.2%, L: 1.8%)
• Internal air quality. (B: 2.14%, L: 3.64%)
• Thermal comfort (B: 3.2%, L: 2.7%).
• Low-emitting materials (B: 1.1%, L: 1.8%).
• Acoustics. (B: 1.1%, L: 0.91%)

Differences

BREEAM gives credit for:

• Preventing light nuisance (1.1%).

• Purge ventilation (1.1%).

LEED gives credit for:

• Air quality construction (0.9%).

• Smoking prohibited inside, outside 7.5 meters from facade openings

The prohibitation of smoking is a prerequisite. This means you don’t receive credits for it, but the design
must be in compliance with this.

Conclusion

Both BREEAM and LEED give have almost the same weighting factor for Health. Most of the credits are
similar. They both give credit for sufficient daylighting, although LEED gives almost 3 times the amount of
points.

The most important difference is that LEED prohibits smoking inside and close to the building. It is striking
that a BREEAM certified building can still allow inside smoking.
Waste

BREEAM (7%) LEED (2%)

MR PRE1: Storage and Collection of Recyclables
To reduce the waste that is generated by building
occupants and hauled to and disposed of in landfills.

MR PRE2: Construction and Demolition Waste

Management Planning
To reduce construction and demolition waste disposed
of in landfills and incineration facilities by recovering,
reusing and recycling materials.

WST1: Construction waste MR9: Construction and Demolition Waste

management
To stimulate efficient use of materials by effective
waste management on the construction site.
Points: 3 / 4.50%
Management
To reduce construction and demolition waste disposed
of in landfills and incineration facilities by recovering,
reusing and recycling materials.
Points: 2 / 1.82%

WST2: Use of recycled aggregates

To stimulate the use of recycled and secondary
aggregates, thereby reducing the demand for primary
materials and optimising material efficiency in
construction.
Points: 1 / 1.50%

WST3A: Operational waste

To provide dedicated storage facilities for a building’s
recyclable waste streams and so help to avoid waste
being sent to landfill or incineration.
Points: 1 / 1.50%

WST3B: Operational waste (dwellings)

To provide dedicated storage facilities for a building’s
recyclable waste streams and so help to avoid waste
being sent to landfill or incineration.
Points: 1 / ...%

WST5: Compost
To stimulate the composting of organic waste, to
reduce the amount of discharged organic waste or to
make usable on-site.
Points: 1 / ...%
WST6: Finishes
To prevent waste of materials by fine-tuning with the
building’s occupants about the finishes and furnishings
of the building.
Points: 1 / ...%
Conclusions
Similarities

BREEAM and LEED both give credits on the following aspects:

• Construction waste management (B: 4.5%, L: 1.8%)

• Use of recycled materials (B: 1.5%, L: 4,5%)
• Providing space for recyclable waste streams (B: 1.5%, L: Prerequisite)

BREEAM doesn’t require to design space for recycling waste, LEED does. The credit for use of recycled
materials with LEED is found in Section Materials: Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction.

Differences

BREEAM gives credit for:

• Use of recycled aggregates (1.5%)

Conclusion

For this credit also counts that the biggest difference is in weighting factor. BREEAM has a specific section
for Waste, LEED doesn’t. Their credits that have to do with waste come from the section Materials &
Resources. BREEAM gives 7.5% for Waste credits, LEED only 1.8%.

Both labels give points for managing construction waste, the use of recycled materials and providing
space for recyclable waste streams. So apart from the weighting factor, the credits in the section Waste are
comparable.
Materials
BREEAM (13%)
MAT1: Construction materials
To identify and stimulate the use of materials with a
low environmental impact during the entire life-cycle
of the building.
Points: 8 / 5.88%
MAT5: Responsible sourcing of materials
To recognise and encourage the specification of
responsibly sourced materials for key building
elements.
Points: 4 / 2.94%
MAT7: Designing for robustness
To recognise and encourage adequate protection
of exposed elements of the building and landscape,
therefore minimising the frequency of replacement
and maximising materials optimisation.
Points: 1 / 0.74%
MAT8: Design for flexibility
To stimulate the development of buildings with a high
level of flexibility.
Points: 4 / 2.94%
MAN11: Ease of maintenance
To stimulate the design of buildings and installations
that are easy to maintain during their entire life-cycle.
Points: 1 / 0.75%
MAN12: Life cycle cost analysis
To recognise and encourage life cycle costing and
service life planning in order to inform decisions
relating to design, specification and through-life
maintenance and operation.
Points: 2 / 1.50%
LEED (10%)
PRE MR1: PBT Source Reduction - Mercury
Required
To reduce mercury-containing products and devices
and mercury release through product substitution,
capture and recycling.
MR1: Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction
To encourage adaptive reuse and optimize the
environmental performance of products and materials.
Points: 5 / 4.55%
MR2: Environmental Product Declarations
To encourage the use of products and materials for
which life-cycle information is available and that have
environmentally, economically and socially preferable
life-cycle impacts.
Points: 2 / 1.82%
MR3: Sourcing Of Raw Materials
To encourage the use of products and materials for
which life-cycle information is available and that have
environmentally, economically and socially preferable
life-cycle impacts.
Points: 2 / 1.82%
MR4: Material Ingredients
To reward project teams for selecting products for
which the chemical ingredients in the product are
inventoried using an accepted methodology and for
selecting products verified to minimize the use and
generation of harmful substances.
Points: 2 / 1.82%
MR5: PBT Source Reduction - Mercury
To reduce the release of persistent, bioaccumulative,
and toxic (PBTs) chemicals associated with the life cycle
of building materials.
Points: 1 / ...
MR6: PBT Source Reduction - Lead, Cadmium, and
Copper
To reduce the release of persistent, bioaccumulative,
and toxic (PBTs) chemicals associated with the life cycle
of building materials.
Points: 2 / ...%
BREEAM LEED
MR7: Furniture and Medical Furnishings
To enhance the environmental and human health
performance attributes associated with freestanding
furniture
and medical furnishings.
Points: 2 / ...%

MR8: Design for Flexibility

Conserve resources associated with the construction
and management of buildings by designing for
flexibility and ease of future adaptation and for the
service life of components and assemblies.
Points: 1 / ...%
Conclusions
Similarities

BREEAM and LEED both give credits on the following aspects:

• Low environmental impact construction material (B: 5.9%, L: 4,6%)

• Responsible sourcing of materials (B: 2.9%, L: 3.6%)

Differences

BREEAM gives credit for:

• Designing for robustness (0.7%)

• Ease of maintenance (0.75%)
• Designing for flexibility (2.9%)
• Life cycle cost analysis (1.5%)

LEED contains a credit for flexibility as well, but this one only applies to healthcare buildings.

Conclusion

The main difference in this section are the weighting factors. BREEAM gives a weighting factor of 13% to
this section, while LEED only gives 10%. Both labels give credits for using construction material with low
environmental impact. They also give points for the responsible sourcing of materials.

BREEAM has additional credits for designing for robustness, designing for flexibility, stimulating ease of
maintenance and making a life cycle cost analysis. LEED also has a credit for the design for flexibility, but
it only counts for healthcare buildings. It would be positive to let this credit count for other types of public
buildings as well.

In the section materials both labels give credit for reducing the environmental impact of used materials and
responsible sourcing of raw materials. The biggest difference in rating on sustainable use of materials is the
credit desiging for flexibility. LEED only awards this credit to healthcare buildings.
Transport
BREEAM (7%)
TRA1A: Public transport accessibility
To recognise and encourage development in proximity
of good public transport networks, thereby helping to
reduce transport related pollution and congestion.
Points: 2 / 1.33%
TRA1B: Public transport accessibility (shops,
logding and meeting)
To recognise and encourage development in proximity
of good public transport networks, thereby helping to
reduce transport related pollution and congestion.
TRA1C: Public transport accessibility (residential)
To recognise and encourage development in proximity
of good public transport networks, thereby helping to
reduce transport related pollution and congestion.
TRA2: Proximity to amenities
To encourage and reward a building that is located in
close proximity to local amenities, thereby reducing
the need for extended travel or multiple trips.
Points: 1 / 0.67%
TRA3A: Alternative modes of transport
To provide facilities which encourage building users
to travel using low carbon modes of transport and to
minimise individual journeys.
Points: 2 / 1.33%
TRA3B: Alternative modes of transport
(residential)
To provide facilities which encourage building users
to travel using low carbon modes of transport and to
minimise individual journeys.
LEED (11%)
LT4: Surrounding Density And Diverse Uses
To conserve land and protect farmland and wildlife
habitat by encouraging development in areas with
existing infrastructure. To promote walkability and
transportation efficiency and reduce vehicle distance
traveled. To improve public health by encouraging
daily physical activity.
Points: 5 / 4.55%
LT5: Access To Quality Transit
To encourage development in locations shown to
have multimodal transportation choices or otherwise
reduced motor vehicle use, thereby reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and other
environmental and public health harms associated with
motor vehicle use.
Points: 4 / 3.64%
LT6: Bicycle Facilities
To promote bicycling and transportation efficiency and
reduce vehicle distance traveled. To improve public
health by encouraging utilitarian and recreational
physical activity.
Points: 1 / 0.91%
LT7: Reduced Parking Footprint
To minimize the environmental harms associated with
parking facilities, including automobile dependence,
land consumption and rainwater runoff.
Points: 1 / 0.91%
LT8: Green Vehicles
To reduce pollution by promoting alternatives to
conventionally fueled automobiles.
Points: 1 / 0.91%
 BREEAM LEED
TRA4: Pedestrian and cyclist safety
To encourage the designing of safe pedestrian and
cycling routes on the location.
Points: 2 / 1.33%

TRA5: Travel plan and parking policy

To encourage the minimalization of heavy polluting
travelling to reduce travel related carbon emissions
and congestion.
Points: 3 / 2%
TRA7: Travel information point
To ensure that the building has the capacities to
provide users with recent information about local
public transit routes and schedules.
Points: 1 / 0.67%

TRA8: Supply delivery and maneuvering

To guarantee safety and minimize disturbance from
delivering traffic by designing safe access to the site.
Points: 1 / 0.67%
Conclusions
Similarities

BREEAM and LEED both give credits on the following aspects:

• Public transport accessibility (B: 1.3%, L: 3.6%)

• Surrounding density and amenities (B: 0.7%, L: 4.6%)
• Alternative modes of transport (B: 2.7%, L: 1.8%)

BREEAM’s relatively low credit for surrounding density and amenities is mainly because they don’t give
credit here for building in a high density area. They do this however in the credit LE1: Re-use of land.

Differences

BREEAM gives credit for:

• A Travel information point (0.7%).

• Safe supply delivery on-site (0.7%).

However, the points given for these credits are relatively low so you can’t say there is much difference.

Conclusion

Considering the weighting factors both LEED (11%) and BREEAM (7%) rate about the same for the section
Transport. They also have most of the credits in common: public transport accessibility, surrounding density
and amenities and alternative modes of transport.

BREEAM has two extra credits for a travel information point and safe supply delivery on-site. Obviously
these are good applications, but their factors are quite low (0.7%) and are more additions than architectural
interventions.
Social Sustainability

BREEAM (1%) LEED (5%)

MAN6: Stakeholder participation SS11: Joint use of facilities
To include stakeholders (building users, companies, To integrate the school with the community by sharing
residents and local government) in the design process the building and its playing fields for nonschool events
to optimize the building’s functionality. and functions.
Points: 1 / 0.75% Points: 1 / 0.91%

MAN8: Safety RP1: Regional Priority

To identify and stimulate effective design measures To provide an incentive for the achievement of credits
that have a positive influence on local social safety and that address geographically specific environmental,
offer protection against criminality. social equity, and public health priorities.
Points: 1 / 0.75% Points: 4 / 3.64%
Conclusions
Similarities

Although not quite the same, the credits:

• MAN6: Stakeholder Participation and RP1: Regional Priority have some things in common. Both credits
address to the importance of including local needs in the design. BREEAM does this by creating an
incentive for consulting the local population, LEED has a credit library wherein depending on the
location you are building different credits can be obtained.

Differences

LEED gives credit for:

• Joint use of facilities

BREEAM gives credit for:

• Safety

Conclusion

For both labels goes that social sustainability plays a role but it is a minor one. BREEAM has only two
credits belonging to this section worth 1.5%, where LEED has two credits worth 4.6%. It should be noted
that LEED’s credit for Regional Priority is counted double, since it is about credits already scored in other
sections that have extra regional value.

The fact that LEED has a credit for joint use of facilities is positive. A multifunctional building can be seen as
sustainable since there are less hours that the building is unoccupied. I think the amount of points for this
credit should be higher and also included in the BREEAM system.

BREEAM’s approach of giving incentive to talk to the local population is a good strategy in my opinion. A
building is much more supported when locals have had the chance to be included in the design process.
Again the amount of points given for this credit is relatively low.
Innovation & Education

BREEAM (11%) LEED (6%)

MAN3: Construction site environmental impact INN1: Innovation
To stimulate responsible management of construction To encourage projects to achieve exceptional or
site in terms of sustainable use of material, reducing innovative performance.
energy use and reducing pollution. Option 1. Innovation
Points: 1% Option 2. Pilot
Option 3. Additional strategies
Points: 5 / 4.55%
MAN4: User Manual INN2: LEED Accredited Professional
To stimulate the creation of a building user manual To encourage the team integration required by a
to enable the non-technical occupants to understand LEED project and to streamline the application and
the building and to be able to efficiently control the certification process.
systems. Points: 1 / 0.91%
Points: 1 / 0.75%

MAN9: Sharing of knowledge GEN: Integrative Process

To stimulate the education of building users and To support high-performance, cost-effective
visitors about sustainable building. project outcomes through an early analysis of the
Points: 1 / 0.75% interrelationships among systems.
Points: 1 / 0.91%

HEA1: Daylighting
To provide interior spaces with sufficient daylighting
for the benefit of visual performance and wellbeing.
Points: 1%

ENE1: Energy efficiency

To design buildings with an as low as possible CO²
emission of primary energy use during use fase.
Points: 2%

ENE5: Application renewable energy

To stimulate application of renewable energy in the
direct environment.
Points: 1%
TRA3A: Alternative modes of transport
To provide facilities which encourage building users
to travel using low carbon modes of transport and to
minimise individual journeys.
Points: 1%

MAT1: Construction materials

To identify and stimulate the use of materials with a
low environmental impact during the entire life-cycle
of the building.
Points: 1%
 BREEAM LEED
MAT5: Responsible sourcing of materials
To recognise and encourage the specification of
responsibly sourced materials for key building
elements.
Points: 1%

WST1: Construction waste

management
To stimulate efficient use of materials by effective
waste management on the construction site.
Points: 1%

WST2: Use of recycled aggregates

To stimulate the use of recycled and secondary
aggregates, thereby reducing the demand for primary
materials and optimising material efficiency in
construction.
Points: 1%

POL4: NOx emissions

To encourage the supply of space heat and/or hot
water from a system that minimises NOx emissions,
and therefore reduces pollution of the local
environment.
Points: 1%
Conclusions
Differences

BREEAM gives credits for:

• Creating a user manual

• Sharing of knowledge

LEED gives credits for:

• LEED accredited professional

• Integrative process.

Conclusions

BREEAM (11%) gives almost twice as much points as LEED (6%) for Innovation. They have different systems
for awarding these points. BREEAM gives the opportunity for scoring exemplary performances at several
credits. Since these credits are all pre-determined, the given freedom is relatively low.

LEED has a special pilot credit library for scoring innovation points. Since these extra credits are also
predetermined the freedom is restricted as well. LEED also gives the option of scoring a point on a self-
developed credit, but as this counts for only 0.91% it is quite insignificant.