Rethinking Green Building Certifications in Facilities Management

Green building certifications have played a major role in advancing sustainable construction over the past two decades. BREEAM, LEED and similar frameworks have raised awareness, improved specifications, and helped shape a built environment that is more resource-efficient by design. But certification is only part of the sustainability journey. The real challenge begins when a building becomes operational.

Facilities managers are increasingly caught between rising ESG expectations and the daily demands of regulatory compliance. Bridging that gap requires a shift in thinking. Sustainability needs to be embedded from day one of operation, not just targeted in the design phase.

Certification without Performance Is No Longer Enough

While BREEAM and LEED have become widely recognised in the UK and internationally, their primary focus remains rooted in initial design, materials, and construction decisions. They are often used to demonstrate alignment with ESG strategies or investor requirements. However, these certifications are voluntary, not legally mandated, and in many projects, their value is measured more in marketing or asset valuation terms than in long-term operational impact.

For facilities managers, that can create a disconnect. A building may be handed over with gold-standard credentials, but without the tools, processes or culture to sustain those standards in practice. Over time, energy performance may decline, original settings are overridden, and the realities of occupation shift the building further away from its intended sustainability profile.

The Pressure of Net Zero and Shifting Regulation

As net zero targets draw nearer, that disconnect is becoming more difficult to ignore. Facilities managers are expected to maintain, measure and report on performance in increasingly complex ways. Yet the regulatory landscape remains fragmented. Government policy sets ambitious goals for carbon neutrality, but the implementation is often unclear, slow to update or reliant on guidance rather than legislation.

This patchwork of evolving rules, voluntary codes, and non-binding targets places pressure on building operators to make sense of competing priorities. Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings, for example, are set to become a determining factor in letting commercial buildings by 2030, with a minimum ‘B’ rating required. Yet many existing buildings fall short and will require significant investment or refurbishment to avoid being rendered non-compliant.

Without stronger direction and alignment across regulatory frameworks, certification alone will not solve these operational challenges.

Why Facilities Management Must Evolve

A shift is needed in how buildings are managed post-certification. Compliance should not be viewed as the ceiling of sustainability ambition. Instead, facilities managers must be empowered with systems and data that support continuous improvement over time.

This starts with early integration. Deploying digital platforms at the commissioning stage allows for the creation of operational baselines, which can then be used to benchmark performance and optimise systems throughout the building’s lifecycle. Smart metering, sensor networks, and building management systems all contribute to this capability, but they must be embedded in the operational strategy — not added as an afterthought.

Our energy services teams take this approach across a range of customer environments. By using live data to understand real-world usage patterns, we help our customers reduce energy consumption, extend asset life and make more informed maintenance decisions.

The Human Factor: From Handover to Ongoing Impact

A certified building is not necessarily a sustainable one. The people who operate and use the building every day determine how it performs. That includes facilities managers, but also contractors, tenants and building users.

Without shared ownership of environmental goals, sustainability can quickly fall off the agenda. Facilities teams are often measured against legal compliance, not energy performance or carbon reduction. Training, engagement and clarity of purpose are essential to change this dynamic.

Likewise, the technologies and strategies deployed must be usable and adaptable. Buildings are not static. Occupancy changes, usage patterns evolve, and equipment ages. Sustainable facilities management means planning for variability, not relying on fixed assumptions from the design phase.

A More Outcomes-Focused Future for Certification

There are signs of progress. Newer frameworks, such as NABERS UK, focus on real-world performance, only awarding certification based on measured data after a building has been in operation for a set period. This encourages long-term accountability and gives facilities managers a clearer role in delivering sustainability outcomes.

The next version of BREEAM is also expected to address operational performance more directly. Incorporating technologies like IoT and AI will enable more accurate and ongoing assessment of building sustainability.

But technology alone is not the answer. The transition to sustainable operations requires cultural change, consistent standards, and a redefinition of what success looks like in facilities management. Instead of asking whether a building is certified, the better question is whether it is performing to its potential — environmentally, operationally and economically.

Sustainability as a Daily Decision

Buildings are complex, living systems. Achieving and maintaining sustainability in that context is not a one-time certification exercise. It is a series of decisions, made every day, by the people who run them.

Facilities managers are central to that effort. They need the tools, the data, and the mandate to move beyond minimum compliance and into meaningful impact. Certification can be a useful starting point. But real sustainability begins with how a building is run — and how that aligns with the future we are all trying to build.