Will BREEAM ever be regenerative?

For those of us who've spent considerable time working with the scheme, it warrants a moment of reflection.

Can an assessment methodology ever truly enable regenerative design?

BREEAM Version 7 for New Construction has just been released, representing one of the most substantial updates in years.

This question feels personal

I started my career working on BREEAM assessments back when we sent evidence via CDs by post. The physical manual, a phonebook-sized tome, lived comfortably on every sustainability consultant's desk.

In many ways, I owe my career to it. It gave us a foundation to understand what sustainability in the built environment actually means, nudging me towards acoustics, daylighting, water efficiency, ecology, energy, materials, waste, transport and management processes.

But our industry’s expectations are changing.

Can BREEAM keep up?

Even if it feels archaic at times, there are many things that BREEAM does well. The assessment methodology covers nearly everything that matters in sustainable building design. From how projects are managed to their impact on surrounding sites and communities, it generates genuine collaboration between disciplines that might otherwise remain siloed.

It also demands rigour. Like it or loathe it, the scheme is ultimately assessed on actual building performance at the as-built stage. You can't simply promise sustainability; you must demonstrate it. For many projects, BREEAM provides essential structure, reminding teams to ask key questions at key stages and establishing a baseline of good practice.

But there are clear limitations. For me, there are three.

Three clear limitations

1) Tick-box

The tick-box approach can feel like chasing points rather than meaningful outcomes.

The policy requirement to achieve BREEAM Excellent across much of London has been both a blessing and a curse, raising the profile of sustainable design whilst simultaneously forcing buildings down a single route when resources might have been better deployed elsewhere.

2) Admin

The administrative burden has become substantial, with credits becoming unattainable if arbitrary deadlines are missed, regardless of actual project progress.

The QA process has been painful at times, with auditors possessing minimal real-world experience creating lengthy delays over procedural matters whilst substantive sustainability questions go unexplored.

3) Pace

Then there's the slower pace of evolution. During the two years we've been anticipating Version 7, industry practice has advanced, particularly in whole-life carbon assessment.

Many of us have found ourselves conducting two separate assessments: one lifecycle analysis for planning and project decision-making, and another simplified version to satisfy BREEAM credit requirements. This is inefficient and confusing, suggesting the methodology is following rather than leading.

Opening one door, closing another

But Version 7 addresses some of these concerns. It brings stronger alignment with regulatory frameworks such as the EU Taxonomy, the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard and updated Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.

It has a greater emphasis on decarbonisation (e.g. operational fossil fuel use now prohibited for Outstanding ratings). Life cycle assessments and operational energy predictions must be updated at later project stages, indoor air quality requirements have been strengthened and daylighting standards now require annual climate-based modelling. These are meaningful improvements that demonstrate BRE's commitment to raising performance expectations and ensuring measurable outcomes.

But here's the tension I can't quite resolve. In opening doors for tightening decarbonisation metrics and regulatory alignment, is BREEAM inadvertently closing the door on regenerative design?

The regenerative question

Regenerative design invites us to measure success differently. Not simply in terms of overall cost or even carbon saved, but through broader social, economic and environmental metrics such as job creation within the local community, wealth retained locally rather than extracted, ecosystems and habitats genuinely enhanced, and the diversity of bird species and intensity of birdsong.

It does this by asking a different question: how might this building actively restore and regenerate the social and ecological systems it touches? Answering this requires looking beyond the site boundary, starting with the place itself and asking questions like:

What does this site want to do?
What is it currently prevented from doing?
How do material flows move through this location? Where do they come from and where might they return?

It's a process rather than an outcome, a mindset rather than a set of targets. The more I work with regenerative principles, it becomes clearer that there will never be a truly successful methodology for assessing how regenerative a building is.

A different kind of tool kit

Assessment methodologies serve an important purpose. They establish baselines, ensure accountability, and create market recognition for buildings that perform better than minimum standards. But by their nature, assessment tools are backwards-looking.

They measure against established criteria, reward consistency and predictability and struggle to accommodate the site-specific, context-dependent thinking that regenerative practice demands.

BREEAM will continue to evolve, becoming more rigorous around carbon and better aligned with emerging regulations. These are positive developments. Yet I don't believe BREEAM will ever be regenerative, and I'm not certain it should try.

What we need instead is a different kind of toolkit. Something closer to the Regenerative Architecture Index or similar frameworks that pose regenerative questions rather than scoring predetermined answers:

What is the carrying capacity of this place?
What social infrastructure does this community lack?
How might this project create closed-loop material flows?
What forgotten ecological functions might be restored?
How do we measure success in terms of system health rather than building performance?

Two thoughts, simultaneously

First, BREEAM remains valuable. For projects pursuing it thoughtfully rather than mechanically, it brings together expertise, ensures rigour and raises standards above business-as-usual.

Second, we need to move beyond our current construction paradigm. Living within the planetary boundaries cannot be achieved through incremental improvements to building assessment schemes. It will require transformation in how we think about buildings, materials, energy, place, community and prosperity.

BREEAM can be part of the toolbox, monitoring and verifying the physical performance of buildings within a larger regenerative framework. But it cannot be the framework itself. That shift won't come from an updated methodology or revised credit weightings. It requires a different conversation entirely.

I'm still working out what that looks like in practice, and I suspect many of us are. Perhaps that's exactly where we need to be: in the uncomfortable space between what we know how to measure and what we need to transform.

Will BREEAM ever be regenerative?

This question feels personal

Can BREEAM keep up?