This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut] On: 13 October 2013, At: 14:33 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Building Research & Information Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20 The effect of BREEAM on clients and construction professionals Libby Schweber a a School of Construction Management and Engineering , University of Reading, Whiteknights , PO Box 219, Reading , RG6 6AY , UK Published online: 07 Mar 2013. To cite this article: Libby Schweber (2013) The effect of BREEAM on clients and construction professionals, Building Research & Information, 41:2, 129-145, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2013.768495 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.768495 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 13 October 2013, At: 14:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Building Research & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20
The effect of BREEAM on clients and constructionprofessionalsLibby Schweber aa School of Construction Management and Engineering , University of Reading,Whiteknights , PO Box 219, Reading , RG6 6AY , UKPublished online: 07 Mar 2013.
To cite this article: Libby Schweber (2013) The effect of BREEAM on clients and construction professionals, Building Research& Information, 41:2, 129-145, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2013.768495
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.768495
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
IntroductionPolicy-makers and built environment stakeholdersunderline the importance of the built environment fornational carbon reduction targets and for sustainabledevelopment (e.g. Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2005; Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007); theyalso consistently insist on the role of assessment andcertification to meet those goals. Amongst the variousbuilding-level assessment tools currently available inthe UK, the Building Research Establishment Environ-mental Assessment Method (BREEAM) for commer-cial new build is the best established, in terms of bothuptake and recognition (see below). But this impor-tance is not reflected in current research on assessmenttools and sustainable construction more generally.Instead, most studies focus either on formal/technicalfeatures of assessment tools or on building perform-ance. Curiously, little attention is paid to the peopleand processes responsible for using the tool.
This gap in the literature is addressed here by focusingon the effect of BREEAM on clients and professionals.More specifically, this paper considers BREEAM as aprocess and asks about its ability to inflect dominantunderstandings and practices. To explore this question,the analysis draws on Michel Foucault’s ‘analytics ofgovernment’, as developed by Mitchell Dean in hisanalysis of ‘governmentality’ (Dean, 1999) and asapplied to sustainable development by Bebbingtonand colleagues (Bebbington, 2009; Bebbington,Brown, & Frame, 2007).
The discussion rests on the assumption that themeaning of concepts such as ‘sustainability’ and‘green building’ is not given, but rather is the objectof ongoing negotiation. While policy-makers andscholars debate the ‘correct’ or ‘best’ definition inhigh-profile United Nations meetings in Rio andCopenhagen and in the corridors of government, build-ing professionals are busy giving content to these con-cepts on the ground, through the specification of newstandards and the construction of new types of build-ings. BREEAM clearly plays a role in that bottom-updefinition of sustainability. This study asks how andto what effect.
Background onBREEAMFormal featuresA variety of different types of tools and methods havebeen developed to encourage and document ‘progress’towards more sustainable construction. A compen-dium of sustainable development indicator initiativesby the International Institute for Sustainable Develop-ment (IISD) listed 895 tools as of 2012 (IISD, 2012).BREEAM was introduced in 1990 and was the firstcomprehensive assessment method explicitly directed
at buildings (Cole, 2005).1 The method is owned andadministered by BRE Global Ltd. The BuildingResearch Establishment (BRE) began its life as a gov-ernmental scientific research institute. In the courseof the 1990s it was gradually privatized and today isowned by the BRE Trust (formerly the Foundationfor the Built Environment, a non-profit distributingcompany, created explicitly to bid for the BRE) (Court-ney, 1997). As one of the BRE’s primary sources ofincome, BREEAM has necessarily gained a commercialdimension, although how this has affected the ongoingdevelopment of the method has yet to be publiclydocumented.
The ‘comprehensive’ character of BREEAM lies in themultiplicity of different items across which a designand project team can gain credits. Each item is assigneda certain number of credits. Credits are organized intocategories, including Management, Energy and Trans-port, Water Materials and Waste, Land Use andEcology, Pollution and Health and Well Being. Eachcategory is weighted. A BREEAM score consists ofthe total number of credits, weighted by category.The final number of credits is used to assign a ratingto the building. There are currently 16 different ver-sions of BREEAM for different types of buildings,including BREEAM Offices, BREEAM Retail andBREEAM Education. In addition, each version isupdated every couple of years (Atkinson, 2009), inpart to stay ahead of changing building regulations.The aspiration for comprehensiveness is often intension with a second aim, namely the aspiration toprovide a simple, practical tool which is attractive tothe market (Cole, 2005; Preston & Bailey, 2003).
Drivers and uptakeBREEAM was initially introduced as a voluntary toolfor the self-regulation of new-build commercialdesigns. Key drivers for the uptake of BREEAMinclude policy requirements and client demand. In the1990s its uptake was relatively limited. In 2000,BREEAM began to be included in the list of strategictools which UK policy-makers recommended for use.In 2000 the UK government also adopted BREEAMas a ‘mandatory mechanism’ for all governmentprocurement (DEFRA, 2005, 2007). However,National Audit Reports on government procurementin the years immediately following document a consist-ent lack of compliance (National Audit Office (NAO),2007). By 2005 or so the situation began to change.Government departments began to comply with legalrequirements for their own infrastructure. Ministriesresponsible for health and education began to requireBREEAM assessment as a condition for funding. Atthe same time, local authorities began to adoptBREEAM as a way of conforming to national andregional requirements that they develop their own sus-tainability strategies.
Schweber
130
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
BREEAM assessment and certification increasinglyfigure as a condition for planning permission and as atender requirement for publicly funded non-residentialbuilding projects. Moreover, in the past few years,local authorities and bodies such as the NationalHealth Service Trust and Environmental Trusts havemoved from requiring an assessment to requiring a par-ticular level of certification. The result is that whilelarge segments of the construction sector can and doignore BREEAM, those firms involved in publiclyfunded buildings and those with sustainabilityminded clients have had to accept the overlay of aBREEAM assessment process onto the design and con-struction process.
As of May 2012, BRE Global Ltd reported 4172BREEAM-certified buildings in the UK and 17LEED-certified buildings in the UK (Ciampa & Har-tenberger, 2012). A recent survey of the UK (property)development industry with 7000 respondents foundthat 64% of respondents considered BREEAM to bean essential tool for the sector, with technical advisorsand contractors rating it the most highly relative toother professional groups (Taylor Wessing, Spada, &BPF, 2010).
Research on assessment methodsThe literature on assessment tools can be broken downinto three categories: work discussing new tools andmethodologies; comparisons of tools; and critiques ofexisting tools. Work on new tools generally documentsand promotes a new approach or tool (e.g. Conte &Monno, 2012; Ding & Shen, 2010; Mateus & Brag-anca, 2011; Nelms, Russell, & Lence, 2005); contri-butions to this category tend to privilege technicaland physical features of buildings. In contrast, com-parisons of tools focus on methods currently in circula-tion (e.g. Haapio & Viitaniemi, 2008; Kajikawa,Inoue, & Goh, 2011; Nguyen & Altan, 2011; Reed,Bilos, Wilkinson, & Schulte, 2009; Sev, 2011; Wallha-gen & Glaumann, 2011). Finally, critiques of existingtools tend to focus on their formal features relative toan ideal of genuine sustainability (Kajikawa et al.,2011; Lutzkendorf & Lorenz, 2006; Zimmerman &Kibert, 2007). A key issue in this more critical litera-ture concerns the way in which assessment methodseither close down or facilitate dialogue between stake-holders over core values (Doelle & Sinclair, 2006;Kaatz, Root, & Bowen, 2005; Kaatz, Root, Bowen,& Hill, 2006).
As this discussion indicates, most of this literaturefocuses on the relation between the building, the tooland some ideal of sustainability. Tools are consistentlyanalysed in terms of their formal features or in terms ofthe buildings which they were used to design andassess. This focus on the formal features of the tooland on finished buildings reflects the technical
character of much of the literature and the preferencefor clearly measurable outcomes. However, as Kohler& Lutzendorf (2002) noted, the challenge is todevelop tools which inform decisions and thisdepends on taking into account the actors andprocesses which produce the buildings.
Relatively little has been written on building assess-ment methods in practice and even fewer examinethe experience and understandings of professionals,as they develop through the use of the method.Holmes & Hudson (2002) offer a notable exception:their study interviews key stakeholders involved in anoffice development, including marketing professionalsand occupants. Other papers which consider theeffect of BREEAM as a process include Thomson,El-Haram, & Emmanuel (2010), who focus on the cir-culation of knowledge in the course of an assessmentprocess, and Wallhagen & Glaumann (2011), whoapply three different assessment methods to the samebuilding.
A key policy question concerns the effectiveness ofBREEAM and similar methods; the challenge is howto disentangle the impact of BREEAM from themyriad of other processes at play in the productionof a building. Holmes & Hudson (2002) noted theaspiration to use BREEAM to set regulation standards.The present study builds on that claim by asking inwhat ways BREEAM does or does not serve as a stan-dard for green building during the design and buildingprocess.
Thinking about ‘standards’While relatively little has been written about assess-ment methods in practice, scholars have recentlyturned their attention to the more general phenomenaof standards. In contrast to much of the literature onassessment methods, the literature on standardsconsiders the institutional grounding and authority ofthe tools as well as their impact. Standards, and in par-ticular transnational standards, are formal rulesdesigned to play a coordinating function (Botzem &Dobusch, 2012) through the specification of voluntary‘best practice’ rules’ (Kerwer, 2005). They are devel-oped by non-state organizations and complianceoften depends on pressure from third parties (i.e.other than the state or the firm) (Brunsson, Rasche,& Seidl, 2012).
While primarily used at the national level, BREEAMshares all these features, albeit in a slightly differentway. The method offers a loose set of rules or frame-work designed to transform dominant practice andset new standards. Officially BREEAM is a voluntarytool; however, as the discussion above indicates, it isincreasingly obligatory in certain cases. Like transna-tional standards, BREEAM is owned by a non-state
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
131
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
scientific organization which oversees its implemen-tation. At the same time it benefits from indirect statesupport. Like international standards, BREEAMinvolves a set of general credits. In contrast to manystandards, there are multiple ways of obtaining thosecredits. In addition, the lower the rating sought, themore flexibility there is in which credits to obtain.These features produce a number of tensions inherentin the implementation of standards.
A key feature of standards is their relatively generalcharacter. The policy and market effectiveness of stan-dards and certification schemes depends on the com-parability of products and processes. However, thismay be at odds with the specificity or idiosyncrasy ofa particular firm (Timmermans & Epstein, 2010) orbuilding project. Tensions may arise over the ‘fit’between financial and sustainability requirements orbetween dominant ways of working and BREEAMdriven practice.
Another feature of standards involves the tensionbetween individual and collective interests or needs(Weitzel, Beimborn, & Konig, 2006). In the case ofBREEAM individual interests include those of theBRE and stakeholders whose business has come to belinked – however tenuously – to the market value ofBREEAM. This includes policy-makers who havelinked their programmes to BREEAM assessments,firms that benefit from reputational value and manu-facturers for whom inclusion in the Green Guide is asource of business. ‘Collective interests’ are more diffi-cult to pin down. In principle they involve the contri-bution of BREEAM to ‘sustainable construction’,with its promise to contribute to climate change miti-gation, energy security and sustainable developmentmore generally.
Finally, the literature on standards highlights their rolein organizing markets (Brunsson et al., 2012). Theexample of sustainable product standards such asForest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified timberattests to this function. In the case of BREEAM, thehope is that BREEAM certification will become asource of added market value.
A number of studies have sought evidence for the impactof BREEAM on market value. In a study of commercialrenters’ choice of properties, Dixon, Ennis-Reynolds,Roberts, & Sims (2009) found that while BREEAMprovides a useful market signal for occupiers alreadycommitted to sustainability, for other groups location,cost and availability continue to take precedence. Simi-larly, Lutzkendorf & Lorenz (2011) found that sustain-ability metrics have a very limited effect on propertyvaluation. Finally, in a statistical study of the effect ofEnergy Performance Certificates on rental and capitalcommercial property values in 2011, Fuerst & McAllis-ter (2011) also found that BREEAM ratings had no
statistically significant effect on appraised value. Inthe absence of clear market signals and demand, issuesregarding the (perceived) scientific authority and legiti-macy of the tool become all that more important.
Theoretical frameworkThe question of effect is difficult since BREEAM is onlyone of a variety of methods and processes which con-tribute to the design and construction of a given build-ing. The usual solution to this dilemma is to focus onthe physical features of BREEAM-certified buildings.However, this approach both obscures the effect ofparticipating in a BREEAM assessment process ondesign and construction professionals and creditsBREEAM with more influence than it probably has.As the discussion below indicates, many BREEAMcredits are ‘over-determined’ in the sense that they sim-ultaneously meet BREEAM requirements and respondto other demands, such as building codes, planningrequirements, client demands and personal commit-ments of project team members. While this overlayrecommends the method to practitioners, it poses amethodological problem for the researcher.
To overcome this problem, this paper focuses onBREEAM’s purported role as a decision-making tooland its effect on construction professionals. Morespecifically, it adopts a neo-Foucauldian frameworkfor the analysis of social technologies (Frame & Cava-nagh, 2009). The advantage of this approach is that itfocuses attention on the effect of tools on subjects (or,in this case, project team members).
Foucault’s theory of ‘governmentality’Foucault’s theory of ‘govermentality’ was initiallydeveloped as part of a historical account of trans-formations in the nature of the state (Foucault,1978/1991, 2008). Foucault argued that, over time,governance has shifted from reliance on coercion to‘control at a distance’ or ‘the conduct of conduct’.According to Foucault, neo-liberal ‘government’ or‘governmentality’ is characterized by the use of coor-dinating mechanisms which indirectly control behav-iour through the establishment of norms. As Dean(1999) explained:
Government is any more or less calculated andrational activity, undertaken by a multiplicityof authorities and agencies, employing a varietyof techniques and forms of knowledge, thatseeks to shape conduct by working through ourdesires, aspirations, interests and beliefs, for defi-nite but shifting ends and with a diverse set ofrelatively unpredictable consequences, effectsand outcomes.
(p. 11)
Schweber
132
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
A contemporary example is the use of the UK nationalexamination system to control pupils, teachers andschools. Under the current UK system, the governmentsets a standard for examination results (e.g. A–Cgrades) and then uses it to define and monitor edu-cational achievement. The effectiveness of the systemdepends on the internalization of this definition of edu-cational achievement and associated measures. Whileformal sanctions are used to direct behaviour(through the withholding of resources and opportu-nities), these are not the main mechanism of socialcontrol. Instead, pupils, parents, teachers, schoolheads, employers and universities are all encouragedto orient their behaviour around examination results(and associated league tables). As Clegg, Pitsis, Rura-Polley, & Marosszeky (2002) explained:
What is novel about liberal forms of governmentis that the personal projects and ambitions ofindividual actors become enmeshed with, andform alliances with, those of organization auth-orities and dominant organizations.
(p. 319)
Foucault’s analysis of social control in modern liberalsocieties has also been applied to the study of organiz-ations and firms (Allard-Poesi, 2010; Barratt, 2008;Carter, 2008; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2011;Messner, Clegg, & Kornberger, 2008). Policies,targets, benchmarks and key performance indicatorsare all tools of neo-liberal government, as are inter-national standards (Locanto & Busch, 2010). Whenit comes to organizational change, the ‘fit’ betweenparticular techniques or standards and the dominantsystem of governance becomes an important focus foranalysis (Bebbington, 2009). In the case of corporatesustainability, the approach draws attention to theway in which policies and techniques directed at pro-moting sustainability inflect or transform professionalunderstandings and practices.
Governmentality and ‘social control’Foucault’s theory calls for a detailed analysis of howcontrol is exercised in specific contexts, rather thanthe specification of general laws or ideal types. Devel-oping Foucault’s theory, Dean (1999) identified fourways in which governmentality influences subjectsand their practices. These include visibilities, knowl-edge, techniques and identities. An important featureof this ‘analytics of government’ is the relationbetween the four elements.
‘Visibilities’ refers to the way in which (knowledge)regimes highlight particular aspects of a problem andobscure others. Examples of construction regimesmight include traditional short-term profit regimesand sustainable regimes. Objects are produced byregime-specific techniques and knowledge. Examples
of objects which are involved in firm-level governanceinclude profits, carbon emissions and waste. Finally,‘identities’ refers to the extent to which subjects inter-nalize norms. The same methods that produce or ‘con-struct’ these objects also specify normative standards.Thus, the definitions, indices and calculations thatdefine ‘carbon emissions’ as an object which can be cal-culated and traded are also used to set acceptable levelsand to levy charges on ‘excessive’ emissions.
Bebbington (2009) recently called for the applicationof this framework to study the role of accounting tech-nologies in sustainable development.2 Building on thissuggestion, it is used here to examine the effect ofBREEAM on the construction sector. Rather thanassuming that BREEAM necessarily contributes tothe introduction of a more ‘sustainable’ constructionregime, this project adopts a more empirical approachby asking the following questions:
. What aspects of sustainable construction are ren-dered visible in the course of the assessmentprocess?
. What type of knowledge and techniques are mobi-lized in the conduct of a BREEAM assessment?
. What effect, if any, does involvement in aBREEAM assessment have on the identities andeveryday practices of project team membersduring and beyond the specific project?
This analysis, in turn, provides a basis to reflect on theeffect of BREEAM on construction professionals andits contribution to sustainable construction moregenerally.
MethodsThe research for this study involved an interpretivistapproach based on qualitative data. The designdeployed comparative case study analysis using semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis. Thisapproach is relatively common in comparative soci-ology, but less usual in construction research. Com-parative case study calls for an analysis of each caseas a whole, comparing processes and understandingsacross cases, rather than individual actors or elements(Ragin, 1989). Generalizations focus on types of pro-cesses rather than on outcomes which are expected tovary with the local context. Comparative research isa method, not a theory; as such it must always beused in conjunction with a particular theoreticalframe (Whetten, 2000).
As indicated above, data were collected and analysedusing Foucault’s theory of governmentality. Thisresearch design was adopted as appropriate for a
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
133
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
study of the articulation of BREEAM as a process withspecific design and construction processes. The datawere collected so as to support both a systematic com-parison of assessment processes across cases and astudy of the impact of the assessment on constructionprofessionals. This paper reports on the second ofthese two topics.
Case studiesThe research for this study relies on eight case studies.Each case corresponds to a different BREEAM assess-ment. Six of the case studies were obtained by contact-ing firms which offered BREEAM assessments. Threefirms agreed to participate in the study. Each offeredtwo case studies, one of which was a project thatthey deemed to be particularly successful and onewhich was either more standard or a project wherethey felt that they had lessons to learn. In addition, alarge engineering consultancy and construction firmoffered two additional projects in their capacity asproject managers. Once the projects were selected,the author had to obtain the permission from all ofthe other key players in the project. In three casesthis was not provided and alternate projects had tobe selected.
The result was a bias towards more high-end projectswith high(er) BREEAM ratings, as these teams agreedto participate. That said, the projects were not all flag-ship or exemplary projects. Five of the eight obtainedscores of ‘Very Good’, the usual requirement bypublic authorities, while three achieved Excellent orOutstanding. Within the sample, the relation betweenthe assessment process and the design and constructionprocesses varied. A comparison of cases suggests threetypes of relationship: projects in which the assessmentwas highly integrated into the design and constructionprocess, projects in which it was loosely integrated,and projects in which BREEAM figured as a bolt-onprocess, with relatively little effect on the design andconstruction processes.
While this bias to higher-end projects was not a seriousproblem given the interpretivist character of theresearch design and consequent absence of any claimsto representativity, it does inflect the conclusions thatcan be drawn. Findings concern the effect ofBREEAM on professionals in which there was aninitial client commitment to green building (accountingfor the BREEAM requirement) and a very competent,professional project team.
All the projects were of medium size, ranging from£3.5 million to £11 million in cost and all involvedcommercial buildings. In considering the findings, itis important to keep in mind that the cases were atdifferent stages of the assessment process at the timeof data collection. A couple of the buildings had been
completed at the time of the study, others had obtainedtheir BREEAM design-based certification but were notfully completed, others had received an initial assess-ment by the BRE but had not submitted the finalplans, while others were in the pre-assessment phase.These characteristics are summarized in Appendix A.
Data collection and analysisData collection combined semi-structured interviewsand documents produced by the assessment process.For each case, one- to two-hour interviews were con-ducted with the main actors directly involved in theassessment process. In terms of formal roles thisincluded some combination of the BREEAM assessor,client, architect, project manager, design managerand specialist engineers (usually the mechanical andelectrical (M&E) engineer and structural engineer).In total, 49 interviews were conducted. In three caseskey members of the team had left and could not bereached. In one case, this involved the client, inanother, the BREEAM assessor, and in a third, theM&E engineer. While unfortunate, this gap does notsignificantly compromise the findings, given our inter-est in types of processes and effects and the sample size.
In addition, documents produced in the course of eachBREEAM assessment were analysed. These consistedprimarily of the tracker sheets produced by theBREEAM assessors at periodic intervals in the courseof the assessment (see below) as well as informationsheets for use by project team members. The trackersheets were also used as talking points during the inter-views for more focused questions on individual credits.
Data were coded in NVivo using a combination ofdescriptive and analytic themes.3 Initial descriptive cat-egories included: 1. Project characteristics anddynamics, 2. BREEAM drivers, 3. The BREEAMprocess, 4. Views of sustainability, and 5. Effect ofBREEAM. In a second phase data were re-codedusing an analytics of government framework. The-matic categories included: 1. Visibilities, 2. Knowledge– including rationalities and learning (amongst othersub-themes), 3. Techniques, and 4. Identity. Datawere coded a third time for each credit and whetheror not it was introduced because of BREEAM,whether or not it conformed with ‘standard’ or ‘bestpractice’, and whether or not it was a relatively newpractice.
Ethics procedures were followed in conformity withUniversity of Reading requirements and approval wasobtained from the University Ethics Committee. Infor-mation and consent forms were distributed prior toeach interview, data were anonymized immediatelyafter transcription and copies of the transcripts weresent to each interviewee for review and final approval.
Schweber
134
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
This database is extremely rich. However, like anydataset it has its limitations. For the purposes of thisstudy, the data are limited by the collection of data ata single point in time, such that the study relies bothon subjects’ memory and the current state of theproject. The data are also limited to what intervieweessay and as such miss out on the more subtle impacts ofthe assessment process of which interviewees them-selves might not be aware. That said, these dataprovide an opportunity to go beyond the currentreliance on formal features of the tool and generalobservations which detach the assessment processfrom the project context in which they are applied.
Findings: visibilitiesThe concept of ‘visibility’ draws attention to the way inwhich the assessment process renders visible and givesdefinition to certain issues as features of a green or sus-tainable building (and obscures others). It also high-lights the ways in which BREEAM proposes certainsolutions and distinguishes between ‘sustainable’ and‘unsustainable’ responses. Finally, it draws attentionto the ways of seeing and understanding whichBREEAM encourages (and conversely, discourages).
The formalmethodBy assigning credits to certain practices and by weight-ing certain areas, BREEAM necessarily puts certainissues on the map and, in doing so, obscures others.At its most general, BREEAM privileges environmentaldimensions of sustainable construction at the expenseof social dimensions. In terms of weightings, ‘Energy’credits are weighted the most heavily (19%), followedby ‘Health and Well Being’ (15%), ‘Materials’ (12.5%)and ‘Management’ (12%). While this bias has thepotential to obscure more social dimensions of sustain-able construction and buildings, it fits with the tool’sinitial intention of providing an environmental assess-ment method. That said, its subsequent adoption as apolicy mechanism does contribute to the gap between(1) the UK policy discourse, which builds on theBrundtland and European Union definitions of sustain-able development and encompasses issues of social sus-tainability and governance; and (2) sustainabilityindicators and policy mechanisms, which tend to privi-lege environmental dimensions (Lovell, 2008; Russell& Thomson, 2009; Rydin, 2007b).
Client understandingsOne aspect of visibility involves ‘public’ or ‘non-pro-fessional’ understandings of what ratings such asExcellent or Very Good actually mean. While thisstudy did not focus on public perceptions, the clientinterviews give some sense of non-professional under-standings of BREEAM. Within the study, seven
clients were interviewed. Of the seven, three hadprior experience with BREEAM projects and fourhad none. None felt that they had any understandingof the process or what BREEAM meant prior to enga-ging in their first BREEAM project.
For most of the seven, BREEAM provided an indepen-dent marker of energy efficiency, sustainability or‘greenness’. As the client on one of the integratedassessments explained:
So then everyone was aspiring to a green buildingbut you ask one person ‘What do you mean by agreen building?’ and for them their picture hasgot wind turbine or it’s ground source heatpump or solar panels or energy generation onsite. You speak to somebody else and it’s a differ-ent picture, and somebody else who has got adifferent picture as well . . . what emerged outof that, uhm, was that potentially, if you try tomeasure ‘Have we got a green building or not?’BREEAM comes into play as being an indepen-dent measure. So it might not be the bestmeasure, but it’s kind of one that’s readily under-stood in the architectural world, the buildingworld.
(GCA, client)
For a number of clients BREEAM also served as a sub-stitute for technical or more detailed knowledge. Asone client explained:
Yes, I like frameworks. I’m much – I like being incontrol. I like frameworks. I like tick lists that Ican go around and tick and say, ‘Yes, have weachieved this?’ ’Cause within a framework thenwe know that – ’cause if you don’t know any-thing, as I don’t, within a framework you haveguidance, haven’t you?
(ESB, client)
As an NHS client who had been involved in a numberof assessments explained:
I do not understand the entire process, but what Ido understand is that there is a discipline, thereare questions that make you address things andI think that is absolutely correct because I thinkthe industry as a whole wouldn’t do it unlessthat discipline was in place.
(VBA, client)
This use of BREEAM as a client framework has twosides. On the one hand, BREEAM provided clientswith a method to ensure that their own value commit-ments would be respected and that they would gain theassociated reputational value which they sought. Onthe other hand, it relieved them of the ‘burden’ ofhaving to critically examine and specify their own
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
135
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
knowledge, assumptions and value commitments.While this desire is completely understandable, itdoes challenge claims that BREEAM allows forgreater client engagement and dialogue over the valuechoices implicit in specific design decisions. By trans-lating ‘green building’ into a series of highly technical,discrete specifications BREEAM necessarily obscuresunderlying value choices, at least for the less informedclients. In terms of the analytics of government, theseobservations suggest that while BREEAM provides arecognized marker of ‘greenness’, it may also obscurethe heterogeneous, and potentially contentious,content of that concept.
Visibilities in practiceA third aspect of visibility concerns the impact ofBREEAM on buildings themselves and on the peoplewho design and build them. For the design andproject team, one general effect of BREEAM is todraw attention to a range of design features and prac-tices which they might otherwise have ignored. Whenasked about whether they had learned anything fromthe assessment process, a number of respondentspointed to the comprehensive nature of the methodand the exposure which it gave them to topicsoutside their area of responsibility. Viewed from thisperspective, BREEAM has the effect of renderingvisible and operationalizing more abstract dimensionsof ‘sustainability’. For example, BREEAM defines ‘bio-diversity’ as six species or more and it operationalizes‘daylight’ as a situation where at least 80% of thefloor area in each occupied space (where peoplespend 30 minutes or more) has an average daylightfactor of 2% or more plus a number of furtherspecifications.
As these examples suggest, few BREEAM credits areintuitive. The extent of the work involved in translat-ing abstract concepts into concrete measures meansthat the more knowledge an individual has of construc-tion in general and green building in particular, themore likely they are to question the credit. This waspartly evidenced in the number of requirementswhich were seen to contravene ‘common sense’.
To give but two examples, when asked whether certaincredits were particularly challenging one of the M&Eengineers commented:
There’s credits which are challenging onlybecause I think the BRE have made them challen-ging, so they’ve got to be done at a certain RIBAstage or the amount of information that needs tobe provided. So if you look at an energy feasi-bility study, there’s so many bits that need tobe put on and so much information that needsto be provided in an energy feasibility study,whereas in some cases, the site, through
common sense, wouldn’t need all that infor-mation and yet, the BRE will still want to seethat information there.
(VBA, M&E engineer)
Similarly, an architect whose firm did their own unof-ficial pre-assessment before the BREEAM assessor wasappointed noted a number of materials requirementswhich, she felt, made no sense. As she explained:
there were quite a few things that were – took meby surprise, I mean, what I still don’t understandis, We’ve specified windows and curtain wallingthat is a timber-aluminium composite, so amajority of the elements is timber and someelements instead are aluminium. I think a verygood compromise with low maintenance and soon, but then we got told by the BREEAM asses-sor that’s a D rating because it’s classified likealuminium, and perhaps, . . . obviously frustrat-ing and you think you’re doing the right thingand then it comes back to only get a D rating.
(ESA, architect)
Other issues mentioned in passing involved lightingrequirements that were impossible to achieve, limitsto the number of spaces in the car park in areaswithout adequate public transport, requirements con-cerning the location of recycling facilities, the require-ment for water cut-off valves in a design which alreadyhad passive infrared (PIR) detectors and the use of‘Secured by Design’ in a mental health facility whichalready had other protections. While this list mayseem long, it should not deflect attention from thelarge number of credits which have passed into ‘pro-fessional common sense’ and which appear as either‘reasonable’ or ‘normal’ (see below).
For many professionals, the credits that are mostvisible are those which are seen to create additionalwork. While this often involved the production of evi-dence, it also led to design features which might nototherwise have been included. In the course of theinterviews, respondents were given a list of credits forwhich they were directly responsible and askedwhich, if any, could be directly attributed toBREEAM. These can be divided between practiceswhich were seen to enhance either the sustainabilityor value of the building and those which were seen tohave been introduced solely for the purposes ofgaining another credit.
Design features which respondents felt added valueand/but would not have included, had it not been forBREEAM, included: leak detection systems, automaticsanitary shut offs, sub-metering, lighting levels, theproduction of a user guide, materials selection,ecology issues and cyclist facilities. In each case,BREEAM rendered visible features which, according
Schweber
136
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
to respondents, would not otherwise have beenaddressed, and proposed or prompted solutionswhich might not otherwise have been included.
Features which were seen to have been introducedsolely in order to get another credit and not to haveadded value included: refrigerant leak detection,flood risk surveys and flood alleviation measures,reduction in available parking spaces, cyclist facilities,and additional drinking fountains. The overlapbetween the two lists reflects differences in standardand best practice across firms and projects as well assite considerations.
The latter list is of interest for the way in whichBREEAM requirements interacted with other domi-nant logics, such as the need to deliver the project ontime and at cost or aesthetic considerations. In thecase of refrigerant leak detection, the tension involveda trade off between cost and benefit. In the case offlood-related features, the issue involved the unlikelythreat of flood for a property perched high on a hill.This comment points to a more general issue regardingthe tension between generic conditions set byBREEAM and site specificity. In a number of casescredits which, in general, might be deemed reasonable,and even scientifically informed, appeared silly whenapplied to a particular site.
Another important aspect of visibility involves invisi-bilities or omissions, relative to alternate understand-ings of sustainability. In the case of BREEAM theseinvolved tensions between interviewees’ individualunderstanding of sustainability and those encoded inparticular BREEAM credits. In the course of the inter-views, professionals voiced a number of concerns overthe gap between BREEAM and ‘genuine sustainabil-ity’. A prime example is the failure of BREEAM toaccount for embodied carbon, thereby obscuring a sig-nificant environmental impact.
Findings: knowledge and techniquesFor Foucault and Dean, the category of ‘knowledge’refers to (knowledge) regimes rather than information.This category thus draws attention to the type ofreasoning at play in any given design and to the wayin which they affect behaviour (Dean, 1999, p. 31).Examples of regimes at play in construction projectsinclude: technical, commercial, practical, bureaucraticand ethical considerations. According to Foucault, theeffect of different regimes depends on the moral auth-ority or legitimacy with which they are accorded.
‘Techniques’, in contrast, refers to the mechanisms bywhich that mode of reasoning is translated into direc-tives for action and associated incentives and sanc-tions. A key difference between governmentality and
other forms of power (or management) involves thetype of sanctions applied to instances of non-compli-ance. Whereas historically governance relied on coer-cion or penalties, governmentality relies on moralpressure.
When it comes to BREEAM, the concepts of ‘knowl-edge’ and ‘technique’ draw attention to the type ofknowledge produced and deployed in the course ofan assessment, to the processes and mechanisms bywhich it is translated into directives for action and tothe moral authority which they carry. The discussionis divided between formal knowledge/power effectsand informal ones.
The ‘tracker sheet’as a directive for actionA key knowledge issue which emerges from the dataconcerns the relation between technical, ethical (or sus-tainable) and practical or evidential requirements forthe attainment of individual credits. For project teammembers, this tension is played out around the verytangible medium of the tracker sheet which operatio-nalizes individual credits into specific tasks andassigns responsibility to individual team members fortheir attainment.
In each of the eight case studies, the assessment processproduced and was produced by a succession of ‘trackersheets’. The term, which all of the respondents used,refers to custom-made Microsoft Excel spread sheetswhich the BREEAM assessor produced for membersof the project team. The sheet was used to identifycredits which the team could reasonably aspire toand to assign responsibility for their attainment. Thefinal column in the spreadsheet was used to indicatethe status of each credit at a certain point in time. Anumber of the assessors in the study also used thiscolumn to make notes about difficulties which arose,changes to specific design features and outstandingtasks. Taken together, the succession of versions pro-vides a written trace of the assessment process. Insome of the cases examined, the entire tracker sheetwas circulated to all key members of the projectteam. In others, the assessor and project manager hadexclusive access to the entire sheet, while othermembers were sent a shortened version with thosetasks for which they were directly responsible.
As this brief description indicates, the tracker sheetintroduces another layer to the rendering visible ofcertain design features and practices and obfuscationof others. Once the sheet is composed, only thosecredits listed on the sheet remain visible, while othersdisappear as irrelevant to this particular project. Theprocess is presented as a technical exercise. However,as team members know, much of the ‘additional’work produced by BREEAM involves the productionof evidence. The greater the gap between technical
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
137
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
knowledge informing the tracker sheet, on the onehand, and the practical knowledge needed to fulfil indi-vidual responsibilities, on the other, the weaker thenormative legitimacy of the tool and the more likelyit is to be seen as a bureaucratic exercise.
Additional workThe majority of the project team members interviewedcommented on the additional work involved in demon-strating compliance and thus obtaining credits. As onearchitect explained:
I mean, ultimately you have to feed all the infor-mation to the assessor, and they’re filling in theform, but you have to provide them with every-thing here, and there’s a lot of things that youwouldn’t expect and you have to sit there anddo calculations . . . of this and that and theother, produce separate drawings and go to lotsof meetings, and it is, there’s a lot of time goingon that.
(ESA, architect)
For those project members who were new to the game,the additional work was largely down to not appreciat-ing just what BREEAM actually required. A numbernoted that they would be better prepared next time.As another architect indicated:
I will be a lot more clued up on what I need toknow, I could have easily been just puttingaway copies of things in a folder ready for evi-dence, rather than spending the day going backand . . . trying to find, letters . . . for example Ihave sent to be Secured by Design, I could havejust kept a copy at the time.
(FLA, architect)
In other instances the issue was more technical, as inthe requirement for sub-metering which went farbeyond standard practice. In those instances wherethe technical requirements or evidence base were notautomatically incorporated into everyday routinessomeone had to chase individual team members:
when I knew the tender was about to go out, youknow, I, sort of, went, ‘Oh,’ I bumped into Johnand said, ‘Have you – you got – have you got thesub-metering right then?’ You know, ‘cause oneof the minimum standard credits is sub-meteringof energy. You’ve got to separately meter thespace heating from the hot water heating, andhe, sort of – he gave an answer which made mea bit nervous, and when I pressed him he, sortof, basically said, ‘Oh, I don’t think I’ve donethat, you know, is it too late to do it?’ ‘Wellno, I suppose we could just about . . ..
(FLB, assessor)
Ownership andmoral responsibilityAs the above quote illustrates, one of the main difficul-ties to emerge in many of the cases was the absence ofclear ownership over the BREEAM process. Assessorsinterviewed had a limited fee and thus limited engage-ment in the process. For the most part, assessors heldfour to six meetings with the project team in thecourse of a project, although the amount of backgroundwork and ‘chasing’ varied significantly by assessor andproject. As a result the responsibility for making surethat the requirements specified on the tracker sheetwere actually met was down to whoever cared themost or found themselves, by default, responsible. Insome instances, the assessor took on the task ofchasing credits. However, in most cases it was the archi-tect, project manager or design manager. In one case, anadditional person was assigned to work with the projectmanager to oversee BREEAM, but that person waswithdrawn half way through for lack of funds.
A key issue for many interviewees was the amount oftime which the oversight or ownership of BREEAMentailed. In the two ‘bolt-on’ projects this time wasrelatively limited. In more integrated projects, projectmanagers reported spending approximately 20% oftheir time on BREEAM-related activities, with noadditional recognition or fee! To what extent thiscovered things which they would have done indepen-dent of BREEAM (but for which they needed evidenceand got credits) is not clear.
As this discussion indicates, BREEAM involves theresponsibilization of individual professionals forspecific tasks, both technical and bureaucratic. Accord-ing to Foucault, the effectiveness of this mechanismdepends in large part on the internalization ofBREEAM as a norm which commands voluntary com-pliance. This process will be examined in the discussionof ‘identities’ which follows. Before that, it is helpful toconsider the sanctions applied to non-compliance.
In general BREEAM provides an example of a rela-tively weak technique of government. While thetracker sheet assigns individual responsibility for par-ticular credits, BREEAM credits are only one of a mul-tiplicity of tasks which individual project teammembers face. Moreover, the moral sanction for delay-ing is relatively weak.
In the course of the research, a number of assessorsexpressed their pleasure and amazement at projectfirms which delivered beyond expectations. Thesewere lauded as particularly sustainable, but thosewhich did not deliver or were not as ‘clued up’ werenot dismissed as ‘poor’ or ‘unethical’. Nor did theassessor’s evaluation carry much weight, given theirrelatively marginal role in the project team (at least for-mally). Similarly, while a number of project managersnoted difficulties in getting individual team members to
Schweber
138
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
produce the evidence needed, none expressed anymoral judgement. The closest anyone came to suchcomments was to describe a particular electrical engin-eer as a ‘dinosaur’, but this was not cause for sanction.This absence of moral judgement can, in part, beascribed to the gap between core professional tasks,which are firmly integrated into professional identities,team member interdependencies and the reward struc-ture, and BREEAM. In the example just cited, it wasbureaucratic BREEAM knowledge which waslacking, not technical competence.
Findings: BREEAM and professionalidentitiesThe analytic category of ‘identities’ raises questionsabout the impact of the assessment process on theway in which different professional actors internalizeexpectations set by BREEAM (or fail to) and why.With the sole exception of the BREEAM assessors,none of the interviewees mentioned BREEAM per-formance in their presentation of self; althoughBREEAM does figure in the professional profile ofthe more sustainability oriented firms. One contractoraims to achieve BREEAM excellent on all new-buildprojects from 2012 onwards. Another secures mostof their business with teams which are known fortheir ability to deliver high-end sustainable construc-tion projects, including high BREEAM scores. Onearchitectural firm only takes on projects with high sus-tainability aspirations and high BREEAM scores.Rather than shaping identities, BREEAM would seemto be one of a number of markers which supports theemergence of a niche inter-organizational market ofarchitects, specialist engineering and contractor firmswho specialize in sustainable construction and primar-ily work with one another.
Defending design decisionsIn terms of perceptions, the more knowledgeable inter-viewees were about sustainable construction, the lessthey accepted a simple equation of BREEAM withgreen building. However, rather than rejectingBREEAM out of hand, interview data suggest thatthey use it to defend and promote their own personalcommitments vis-a-vis the rest of the design and con-struction team. This observation confirms a similarpoint by Holmes & Hudson (2002). A number ofengineers in the study suggested that BREEAM pro-vided a useful way to counter attempts by contractorsto change the original design when on site.
As one electrical engineer explained, BREEAM addsweight to the design team:
I mean normally on any contract the first thingwhen it’s let, the contractor wants to start
getting in cheap fittings and things, that’s alwaysthe way and so this is an added sort of argumentto say you can’t go and buy yourself a cheap setof luminaires in B&Q and stick them upbecause these fittings are very efficient and theyare they’re normally a bit more expensive.
(FLA, electrical engineer)
Similarly, a structural engineer on another projectcommented:
the BREEAM sets out a standard that we’ve gotto achieve. Without the BREEAM, and I find itwith a lot of schemes where it isn’t affected byBREEAM, once the project’s back from tender. . . you get to the contract construction stage, alot of things, sustainability items certainly, getengineered out, but with the BREEAM becauseyou’ve obviously got to achieve those – thatBREEAM ‘Very Good’ status, you can’t takethese elements out, so in that respect I think itis pretty good.
(FLB, mechanical engineer)
And as another M&E engineer on another projectnoted:
It’s an authoritative source to back you up. It’snot just you saying, you, you would prefer itthat way. You got sort of design guidance that. . ..
(GCA, M&E engineer).
For these professionals, BREEAM would seem to func-tion less as a normative standard and more as aresource to promote or defend their interests.
In£ecting ‘standard practice’A more subtle and perhaps lasting effect of BREEAMon professional identities and, by extension, on prac-tices can be found in its role in redefining whatcounts as ‘standard practice’. As the previous discus-sion of BREEAM credits suggests, professionals dis-tinguish between design features and practices whichare introduced specifically in order to secure aBREEAM credit and those which are simply ‘standard’or ‘best’ practice. Credits which were dismissed by oneor more interviewees as ‘standard practice’ included:Commissioning (although BREEAM imposed a differ-ent time table), Site Investigation, Ease of Mainten-ance, Considerate Constructors, Construction SiteImpacts, Building User Guide (although BREEAMimposed its own format), Glare Control, High-fre-quency Lighting, Internal and External Lighting,Lighting Zones and Controls, Indoor Air Quality,Volatile Organic Compounds (although BREEAM’srequirements strike some as extreme), ThermalComfort, Thermal Zoning, Microbial Contamination,
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
139
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
Sub-metering (although here, too, the requirementsstrike some as going beyond common sense),Reduction of CO2 Emissions, Provision of Energy-effi-cient Equipment, Building Management System,Water Consumption, Water Meters, Major LeakDetection (although here BREEAM requirements fordrawings goes beyond standard practice), ResponsibleSourcing of Materials and Insulation, Designing forRobustness, Reduction of Night-time Pollution, Mini-mizing Flood Risk, Watercourse Pollution, and Night-time Light Pollution.
In considering this list, it is important to keep in mindthat what constitutes standard practice for one pro-fessional or firm may not be ‘standard’ for another.When asked if these were standard practices fiveyears ago, in most cases the respondent replied ‘no’.Others suggested that BREEAM had helped ‘get ridof the cowboys’. The second point concerns theextent to which many of these practices are re-enforcedby other schemes or obligations. To give but a fewexamples, Commissioning, External Lighting, andReduction of Night-time Light Pollution are specifiedin the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engin-eers (CIBSE) guides; ‘Secured by Design’ is a UK policeinitiative and is a requirement for planning permissionin many instances; Indoor Air Quality is also governedby Health Technical Memorandum (HTM) require-ments as set by the Department of Health; Microbialcontamination is governed by Health and SafetyExecutive (HSE) guidelines; Sub-metering of EnergyUse is in Part L building regulations; and Reductionsof CO2 Emissions are often included in planningconditions.
The overlap of BREEAM requirements with othertypes of requirements reflects both the explicitattempt by the BRE to develop a method which fitswith dominant UK practices, thus encouraging itsuptake, and the time lags which arise from the contin-ual but not necessarily coordinated updating of differ-ent standards. While BREEAM aims to provideabove-compliance standards, the continual updatingof regulations and other standards means that theyare in an on-going dance to catch up or stay ahead ofone another. Given this overlap, it is difficult to saythat BREEAM has singlehandedly transformed stan-dards or professional identities. However, it doesseem reasonable to say that it is an important elementin the landscape contributing to the ongoing inflectionof internalized standards of good practice.
A final aspect of BREEAM which influences the extentto which it enters into the ongoing construction of pro-fessional identities concerns the gap between the object(or rather subject) of ‘responsibilization’ and the objectof assessment. In the case of BREEAM, individualdesign and project team members are assigned respon-sibility for delivering on specific credits. However, it is
the building, not the team members or team as a whole,which is assessed. At the level of subjects, this gap isreflected in the sense of unfairness which arises fromthe loss of certain credits. This stems from the factthat a number of credits depend on elements overwhich the team has no control. Examples includeitems such as proximity to public transport, the dis-tance needed to transport recycled aggregates for con-crete, and ecological credits. This tension, in turn,weakens the extent to which professionals internalizeBREEAM as a measure of their own practice andthereby the Foucauldian link between knowledge andpower.
Discussion and conclusionsBREEAM fromaFoucauldian perspectiveThe analytics of government framework highlights anumber of features of the BREEAM assessmentprocess which generally go unremarked. Theseinclude: professional and public understandings ofthe method; the deployment of different rationalitiesand their implication for the authority and legitimacyof the tool; the effect of BREEAM on what counts asstandard and ‘best’ practice; and the impact ofBREEAM on professional understandings of whatcounts as a ‘green building’. These in turn providea basis on which to reflect on the potential contri-bution of BREEAM to the current debate over thenature and requisites for ‘genuine’ sustainableconstruction.
The concept of ‘visibilities’ draws attention to the roleof BREEAM in operationalizing abstract concepts suchas ‘natural ventilation’, ‘thermal comfort’ and ‘biodi-versity’ and its simultaneous obfuscation of thosetranslations, especially for the vast majority of stake-holders who are not directly involved in obtainingthe credit. BREEAM, by dint of its complexity, theaggregation of radically different types of objects andmeasures, and the shifting criteria associated withdifferent versions of different types of building, doeslittle to educate external stakeholders into themeaning of green buildings. This obscurity may beone factor in its failure to gain more traction in theproperty market.
When it comes to clients, BREEAM is a Janus-facedmethod. On the one hand, it provides a recognizedmeans to introduce environmental and sustainabilitycommitments into a project and to gain reputationalvalue for so doing. It also provides a framework,which in turn gives clients a sense of being in controlor overseeing what is otherwise a complex and myster-ious process. On the other hand, the highly technicalcharacter of the credit definitions, the aggregation ofradically different types of elements and associatedmeasures into a single score, and the bureaucraticcomplexity of the method precludes a clear message
Schweber
140
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
concerning the features of a ‘green building’ and itsperformance. Moreover, to the extent that certaincredits depend on client involvement, as in the pro-vision of evidence for community engagement, thebureaucratic demands risk undermining client confi-dence in the method as a whole.
For the project team, BREEAM has the potential tointroduce professionals to a range of sustainability-related considerations outside of their domain ofexpertise. But the greater the individual’s expertise ina particular area, the less likely they are to accept theBREEAM operationalization of the concept. Thus,while the more sustainability minded professionalsaccepted the utility of certain credits and associated cri-teria and thresholds, they rejected the adequacy of thetool for the achievement of ‘genuine ‘sustainability’.
The analysis of BREEAM as ‘knowledge’ highlights themultiplicity of regimes at play in any given assessmentprocess. While discussions of sustainability often drawattention to a tension between commercial andenvironmental or sustainability considerations, thistype of analysis is rarely extended to the implemen-tation of individual policy tools. Instead, BREEAMand other tools are depicted either as carriers of anew set of criteria, associated with sustainability, oras inadequate owing to their failure to embody thatnew rationality (see below). Leaving aside this discus-sion for the moment, the analysis of regimes in eightcase studies highlighted the multiplicity of rationalitiesat play in a given assessment process. These includecommercial considerations, bureaucratic rationalities,technical or scientific rationalities, and, in someinstances, perceived political logics. A key finding ofthe research is the way in which tensions between pro-fessionals’ own understanding of ‘greenness’ or ‘sus-tainability’ and the requirements of BREEAMundermined their respect for the tool as a whole.
This does not, however, mean that BREEAM has noeffect on project team dynamics or green building. Tothe contrary, within the project team it provides atalking point which brings together members of thedesign and construction teams who might otherwisenot directly engage with one another over issues of sus-tainable building. It also helps to set discrete technicalstandards over a wide range of design decisions, thusreducing the environmental impact of new commercialbuildings, independent of whether or not they areBREEAM certified. While many of these changes arere-enforced by ongoing changes to building regulationsor planning conditions and while the precise contri-bution of BREEAM relative to other drivers is imposs-ible to discern, its contribution should not bedismissed. Finally, BREEAM provides a usefulresource for those professionals committed to sustain-able construction to defend their interests againstpotential changes in the initial design decisions.
Stepping back from BREEAM to a consideration ofvoluntary standard-like tools more generally, thestudy draws attention to the dynamics generated bytensions inherent this type of tool. More specifically,it documents tensions between generic criteria andproject specific requirements. In the case of BREEAMthis tension can lead to a sense of unfairness on thepart of project team members. For those professionalswith a personal commitment to sustainable construc-tion, the gap between their understanding and valuecommitments, on the one hand, and BREEAM require-ments, on the other, weakens its claims to delivergenuine sustainability. This lack of absolute authoritydoes not however lead to a rejection of the tool orrefusal to engage. Instead, it seems to allow for amore active, selective use of the tool as one of arange of methods and tools which can be deployed insupport of an existing understanding and commitment.Finally, the research also underlines the subtle impactwhich such tools have on taken for granted under-standings of standards and ‘best’ practice.
The contribution of building assessment methods to‘sustainable construction’The brief discussion of the literature on assessmentmethods underlined the extent to which most researchbegins from an idealized model of ‘genuine’ sustain-ability which is then used to assess the adequacy ofBREEAM and other assessment methods. Foucault’stheory of governmentality shifts the focus of analysisfrom the ability of BREEAM to contribute to an ima-gined future state to a study of the actual effect ofBREEAM on client and professional decisions andidentities. In closing, it is nonetheless important to con-sider the contribution of this study and a Foucauldianresearch agenda more generally to the literature onassessment methods and sustainable construction.
The literature can be divided between those studieswhich see ‘green building’ and ‘sustainable construc-tion’ as already emerging from modifications to exist-ing practices (Kibert, 2005; Mateus & Braganca,2011) and those which believe that it depends on aradical break (du Plessis & Cole, 2011; Moffat &Kohler, 2008; Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saun-ders, 2004). Curiously, both literatures appeal tosimilar keywords. Sustainable construction, everyoneagrees, depends on a more holistic, integratedapproach to design and construction. It also calls foran expansion in the nature and scope of stakeholderengagement and greater transparency. Where authorsdiffer is in the specification of these and related key-words and in the analysis of how this is to comeabout.
Authors who believe that sustainable constructioncan be achieved by modifying existing practices tendto see BREEAM and other environmental assessment
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
141
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
methods as important tools in this endeavour. A coreassumption in this body of work is that assessmentmethods contribute to the development of a sharedbody of knowledge and understanding, which isdeemed essential for more sustainable construction.Thus, Mateus & Braganca (2011) argued that assess-ment methods have already contributed to a shift inthe dominant ‘paradigm’ and that limitations in thescope of the assessment can be overcome by the intro-duction of additional indicators. Reed et al. (2009,p. 7) claimed that environmental building assessmentmethods raise awareness of environmental issues andstandards, encourage best practice, and stimulate themarket for sustainable construction and property.Finally, Thomson et al. (2010) argued that sustainableconstruction depends on the flow of knowledge andconsequent shared understanding which thisproduces.
A Foucauldian framework challenges the somewhatmechanistic view of knowledge as additive and ben-eficial. Instead it draws attention to the way in whichthe knowledge contained in assessment methods(also) closes down possibilities. Whereas Thomsonet al. (2010) identify the flow of knowledge as a keyfactor in subjective decision-making, Foucauldianshighlight the more fundamental role of personal andprofessional identities and subjectivities in mobilizingthat knowledge.
In contrast to authors who support assessmentmethods as an integral part of any sustainability strat-egy, a second group of scholars rejects current methodsas inimical to genuine sustainability. These authors cri-ticize the narrow environmental, technical and build-ing focus of the tools which neglects the impact ofbuildings on their socio-ecological context and whichprecludes genuine stakeholder engagement and dialo-gue over value choices (Bijker, 2000; Cole, 2005; duPlessis & Cole, 2011). Most of these authors empha-size the need for radical changes in the way in whichpeople think. As du Plessis & Cole (2011, p. 438)explained, ‘a shift in worldview is prerequisite to aparadigm shift’.
Foucault’s theory of governmentality supports thiswork by underlining the constitutive role of knowl-edge regimes and associated techniques. However, italso challenges the depiction of worldviews (attitudes,values, mindsets, etc.) as something which floatsaround in the ether and lodges itself in peoples’minds. Instead, Foucault’s theory of governmentalityfocuses on the criteria of decision-making and modesof reasoning embedded in very practical techniquesand mechanisms which specify and affirm norms andwhich reward or sanction behaviour. As discussedabove, for Foucauldians the effect(iveness) of thisnexus lies in the construction and ongoing affirmationof identities. In this view, mechanisms and devices
(and associated policies and vocabularies) precede orrather constitute mindsets and attitudes. Change,from this perspective, depends on disentangling theassemblage of techniques which embed dominantworldviews.
When it comes to assessment methods and sustainableconstruction, this approach draws attention to theextent to which the core features of assessmentmethods are grounded in a particular neo-liberalregime. This observation, in turn, (re-)situates theanalysis in the literature on standards, which under-lines and links the general, technical character of stan-dards with their (intended) role in organizing markets.For many of the professionals interviewed for thisstudy, the main limits of BREEAM lay in the tensionbetween general indicators and project-level specificityand in the additive character of the credits, such thatsolutions to one credit failed to take into accountrequirements or solutions to another one. Both issuesresonate with academic calls for holistic, flexible strat-egies. What these authors overlook and what a Fou-cauldian analysis adds, is the extent to which thecore features of current building assessment methodsare embedded in a particular mode of governance orrationality. More specifically, the requirement for stan-dardized, general indicators, the deliberate obfuscationof certain sources of variation and the insistence on asingle comprehensive score are all rooted in thedesired use of BREEAM as a source of market value.To the extent that BREEAM embraces variation, it isat the level of product types (education, health,offices) rather than within market substitutes.
As long as market signals remain the ideologically pre-ferred mechanism by which to implement sustainabil-ity, assessment methods will continue to affirmtechnical, mechanistic models of sustainability. Whilethis does not discount the contribution of suchmethods to environmental sustainability, it does raisequestions about way in which the existing panoply ofmethods and tools is locking in certain understandings.It also suggests that, to be successful, ‘paradigm’change necessarily depends on a more systemicchange, not just in the construction sector, but inbroader modes of governance.
When it comes to research, the challenge for thosewho embrace a more radical vision of sustainabilityis to analyse both the heterogeneous assemblageswhich secure the dominant paradigm and the spacesof resistance which are emerging. On a policy level,this analysis is essential for a better understanding ofthe effect and unintended consequences of specificmechanisms and tools. On an academic level, thisagenda promises to shed light on obstacles and con-ditions for the mainstreaming of sustainability andon the effect of project level tools and methods moregenerally.
Schweber
142
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:33
13
Oct
ober
201
3
AcknowledgementsData collection was conducted by the author and DrHasan Haroglu, Kingston University. The researchwas financed by the Engineering and Physical ScienceResearch Council (EPSRC) under the rubric of theInnovative Construction Research Centre at theSchool of Construction Management and Engineering,University of Reading (Grant number EP/E001645/1).The author thanks the Editor and four anonymousreferees for their valuable comments and suggestions.
ReferencesAllard-Poesi, F. (2010). A Foucauldian perspective on strategic
practice: strategy as the art of (un) folding. In D. Golsorkhi,L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge hand-book strategy as practice (pp. 168–182). Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
Atkinson, G. (2009). Sustainable development policy: A briefreview of the literature on current practice, (Final Reportto the Government Economic Service Group on SustainableDevelopment). Retrieved August 21, 2012, from: archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/susdev/documents/sd-review.pdf
Barratt, E. (2008). The later Foucault in organization and man-agement studies. Human Relations, 61(4), 515–537.
Bebbington, J. (2009). Editorial: Measuring sustainable develop-ment performance: possibilities and issues. AccountingForum, 33, 189–193.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007). Accounting tech-nologies and sustainability assessment models. EcologicalEconomics, 61, 224–236.
Bijker, W. (2000). The social construction of fluorescent lighting,or how an artifact was invented in its diffusion stage. In W.E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/buildingsociety: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 75–102). Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Botzem, S., & Dobusch, L. (2012). Standardization cycles: aprocess perspective on the formation and diffusion of trans-national standards. Organization Studies, 33(5–6),737–762.
Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2012). The dynamics ofstandardization: three perspectives on standards in organiz-ation studies. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 613–632.
Carter, C. (2008). A curiously British story: Foucault goes tobusiness school. International Studies of Management andOrganization, 38(1), 13–29.
Ciampa, C., & Hartenberger, U. (2012). Going for green: Sus-tainable building certification statistics Europe May 2012.London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., Rura-Polley, T., & Marosszeky, M.(2002). Governmentality matters: designing an allianceculture of inter-organizational collaboration for managingprojects. Organization Studies, 23(3), 317–337.
Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods:redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Infor-mation, 35(5), 455–467.
Conte, E., & Monno, V. (2012). Beyond the building centricapproach: a vision for an integrated evaluation of sustainablebuildings. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 34,31–40.
Courtney, R. (1997). Building Research Establishment – past,present and future. Building Research & Information,25(5), 285–291.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modernsociety. London: Sage.
Dean, M. (2007). Governing societies. Maidenhead: Open Uni-versity Press.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)(2005). Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable devel-opment strategy. London: HMSO.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)(2007). UK Government Sustainable Procurement ActionPlan: Incorporating the Government response to the reportof the Sustainable Procurement Task Force. London:HMSO.
Ding, G.K. C., & Shen, L. Y. (2010). Assessing sustainability per-formance of built projects: a building process approach.International Journal of Sustainable Development, 13(3),267–279.
Dixon, T., Ennis-Reynolds, G., Roberts, C., & Sims, S. (2009). Isthere a demand for sustainable offices? An analysis of UKbusiness occupier moves (2006–2008). Journal of PropertyResearch, 26(1), 61–85.
Doelle, M., & Sinclair, A. (2006). Time for a new approach topublic participation in EA: promoting cooperation and con-sensus for sustainability. Environmental Impact AssessmentReview, 26(2), 185–205.
Foucault, M. (1978/1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C.Gordon, & P. Miler (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies ingovernmentality (pp. 87–104). London: HarvesterWheatsheaf.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at theCollege de France. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Frame, B., & Cavanagh, J. (2009). Experiences of sustainabilityassessment: an awkward adolescence. Accounting Forum,33, 195–208.
Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. (2011). The impact of EnergyPerformance Certificates on the rental and capital valuesof commercial property assets. Energy Policy, 39,6608–6614.
Gouldson, A., & Bebbington, J. (2007). Corporations and thegovernance of environmental risk. Environment and Plan-ning C: Government and Policy, 25(1), 4–20.
Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of buildingenvironmental assessment tools. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review, 28, 469–482.
Hajer, M. (1997). The politics of environmental discourse: Eco-logical modernisation and the policy discourse. London:Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J., & Hudson, G. (2002). The application of BREEAMin corporate real estate: a case study in the design and mar-keting of a city centre office development. Journal of Corpor-ate Real Estate, 5(1), 66–78.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007).Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contri-bution of Working Group III to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)(2012). Compendium: A Global Directory to IndicatorInitiatives, Retrieved August 24, 2012, from: http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/searchinitiatives.aspx/.
Kaatz, E., Root, D., & Bowen, P. (2005). Broadening projectparticipation through a modified building sustainabilityassessment. Building Research & Information, 33(5),441–454.
Kaatz, E., Root, D., Bowen, P., & Hill, R. C. (2006). Advancingkey outcomes of sustainability building assessment. BuildingResearch & Information, 34(4), 308–320.
Kajikawa, Y., Inoue, T., & Goh, T. N. (2011). Analysis of build-ing environment assessment frameworks and their impli-cations for sustainability indicators. Sustainability Science,6, 233–246.
Kerwer, D. (2005). Rules that many use: standards and globalregulation. Governance, 18, 611–632.
Kibert, C. J. (2005). Sustainable construction: green buildingdesign and delivery. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kohler, N., & Lutzkendorf, T. (2002). Integrated life-cycle analy-sis. Building Research & Information, 30(5), 338–348.
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2011). Organizations as discursiveconstructions: a Foucauldian approach. OrganizationStudies, 32(9), 1247–1271.
Locanto, A., & Busch, L. (2010). Standards, techno-economicnetworks, and playing fields: performing the global marketeconomy. Review of International Political Economy,17(3), 507–536.
Lovell, H. (2008). Discourse and innovation journeys: the case oflow energy housing in the UK. Technology Analysis and Stra-tegic Management, 20(5), 613–632.
Lovell, H., & Liverman, D. (2010). Understanding carbon offsettechnologies. New Political Economy, 15(2), 255–273.
Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. P. (2006). Using an integrated per-formance approach in building assessment tools. BuildingResearch & Information, 34(4), 334–356.
Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2011). Capturing sustainability-related information for property valuation. BuildingResearch & Information, 39(3), 256–273.
Mateus, R., & Braganca, L. (2011). Sustainability assessment andrating of buildings: developing the methodology. Buildingand Environment, 46(10), 1962–1971.
Messner, M., Clegg, S., & Kornberger, M. (2008). Critical prac-tices in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry,17(2), 68–82.
Moffat, S., & Kohler, N. (2008). Conceptualizing the builtenvironment as a social–ecological system. BuildingResearch & Information, 36(3), 248–268.
National Audit Office (NAO) (2007). Building for the future.Sustainable construction and refurbishment on the govern-ment estate, (Report by the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral, HC 324 session 2006–2007). Retrieved April 16,2009, from: www.nao.org.uk/publications/0607/sustainable_construction_andr.aspx
Nelms, C., Russell, A. D., & Lence, B. (2005). Assessing the per-formance of sustainable technologies for building projects.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 114–128.
Nguyen, B. K., & Altan, H. (2011). Comparative review of fivesustainable rating systems. Procedia Engineering, 21,376–386.
Oels, A. (2005). Rendering climate change governable: from bio-power to advanced liberal government. Journal of Environ-mental Policy and Planning, 7(3), 185–207.
du Plessis, C., & Cole, R. J. (2011). Motivating change: shifting theparadigm. Building Research & Information, 39(5), 436–449.
Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Con-ceptualising sustainability assessment. EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Review, 24, 595–616.
Preston, M., & Bailey, A. (2003). The potential for high-perform-ance design adoption in retail property portfolios. CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management,10(3), 165–174.
Ragin, C. C. (1989). The comparative method. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., & Schulte, K. W. (2009). Inter-national comparison of sustainable rating tools. Journal ofSustainable Real Estate, 1, 1–22.
Russell, S. L., & Thomson, I. (2009). Analysing the role of sustain-able development indicators in accounting for and construct-ing a sustainable Scotland. Accounting Forum, 33, 225–244.
Rydin, Y. (2007a). Environmental planning. Society and Space,25, 610–624.
Rydin, Y. (2007b). Indicators as a governmental technology? Thelessons of community-based sustainability indicator projects.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25,610–624.
Sev, A. (2011). A comparative analysis of building environmentalassessment tools and suggestions for regional adaptations.Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 28(3),231–245.
Taylor Wessing, Spada, & BPF (2010). Hitting the wall . . . andbeyond: How is the UK development industry buildingsustainable foundations? Retrieved October 14, 2012,from: www.taylorwessing.com/sustainability/docs/HittingTheGreenWall.pdf
Thomson, C. S., El-Haram, M. A., & Emmanuel, R. (2010).Mapping knowledge flow during sustainability assessment.RIBA Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:Urban Design and Planning, 163, 67–78.
Timmermans, S., & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards butnot a standard world: toward a sociology of standards andstandardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 69–89.
Wallhagen, M., & Glaumann, M. (2011). Design consequencesof differences in building assessment tools: a case study.Building Research & Information, 39(1), 16–33.
Weitzel, T., Beimborn, D., & Konig, W. (2006). A unified econ-omic model of standard diffusion: the impact of standardiz-ation cost, network effects, and network topology. MISQuarterly, 30, 489–514.
Whetten, D. (2000). Organizational comparative analysis: inves-tigating similarities and differences across organizations. InK. Brayden, D. Whetten, & T. Telin (Eds.), Studying differ-ences between organizations: Comparative approaches toorganizational research (pp. 63–87). Bingley: EmeraldGroup.
Zimmerman, A., & Kibert, C. J. (2007). Informing LEED’s nextgeneration with The Natural Step. Building Research &Information, 35(6), 681–689.
Endnotes1Its American counterpart, LEED, was introduced in 1998, fol-lowed by other building assessment methods. Competing toolsin use today include: LEED, Green Star (Australia), LEEDCanada, GBTool, and CASBEE (Japan). There are also othernational versions of BREEAM, including BREEAM NL andBREEAM ES.
2For examples of the application of Foucault’s concept of govern-mentality to the study of sustainable development, see Dean(2007), Gouldson & Bebbington (2007), Hajer (1997), Lovell(2008), Lovell & Liverman (2010), Oels (2005), Russell &Thomson (2009), and Rydin (2007a, 2007b).
3NVivo is a qualitative data software used in social science andeducation research. For the purposes of this project it was usedsolely to code and reference interview data.
Table A1c Cases of ‘bolt-on assessments’case studies
Case study VBA VBB
Type Residential health Residential school
Cost (», millions) 11.5 n.a.b
BREEAMscheme 2008Healthcare 2006Multi-residential
Initial target Excellent Excellent
Predicted targeta Very Good Very Good
Time of study On sited Completed
Notes: aTarget at the time of the study.bThe scale of the project was signi¢cantly curtailedmidway through the design phase.Final ¢gures for the section subjectto the relevant BREEAM assessment were not provided.cWaiting on design stage certi¢cation.dPreparing to submit design stage certi¢cation.
The e¡ect of BREEAMon clients and construction professionals
