BREEAM version 7 : A guide for compliance

What changed in BREEAM version 7 and why it affects your LCA workflow

BREEAM v7 introduces more explicit expectations for:

• Modeling whole-life carbon consistently across defined boundaries
  
• Using high-quality, standards-aligned datasets (increasingly EN 15804+A2)
  
• Delivering repeatable evidence outputs suitable for third-party review
  
• Executing this across multiple project stages, not just once.

Why EN 15804+A2 is central to BREEAM v7 LCA compliance

EN 15804+A1 vs EN 15804+A2 is not a minor formatting difference

EN 15804 is the core European standard that defines how construction product EPDs report impacts across lifecycle modules. EN 15804+A2 expands and restructures impact reporting — moving from the older, smaller set of “core” indicators in A1-era practice to a broader set aligned with current CEN/TC 350 expectations.

A useful shorthand (not a substitute for reading the standard) is:

• A1-era datasets commonly support a smaller set of impact categories
  
• A2-era datasets support a larger set (often described as 19 indicators across core and additional categories), and introduce methodological updates
  

In practical project terms, the key point is not the number of indicators — it is that A1 and A2 datasets are not directly interoperable without explicit rules. Mixing them can yield “complete-looking” outputs that are methodologically inconsistent.

The “transition problem” is structural, not temporary

Many project teams assume A1 will fade quickly and therefore treat mixed datasets as a short-term inconvenience. However, major national datasets and common references remain A1-format, while new manufacturer EPDs increasingly publish A2-format.

“For as long as there is plus A1 data — for example, a large part of the ICE database in the UK is only plus A1 — there will have to be two calculation tools.” - Steven Zijlstra, Product Marketing Manager at One Click LCA

Even if A1 gradually disappears from new EPD publication, legacy project baselines, benchmarks, and procurement conventions can keep A1 datasets in circulation longer than many teams expect.

Practical rule for BREEAM version 7 LCA: never mix EN 15804+A1 and EN 15804+A2 data inside one model

“If you are planning to work with both standards it is recommended to create two design options for them so that you do not accidentally add data to the wrong tool.” - Steven Zijlstra, Product Marketing Manager at One Click LCA

This recommendation is not merely “good practice.” It is a way to prevent a class of errors that are common in project LCAs:

• Importing an early-stage baseline built on A1 generics
  
• Adding a set of manufacturer EPDs that are A2
  
• Producing results that appear complete
  
• Discovering late that the dataset mix invalidates comparability, documentation, or credit logic
  

Why BREEAM v7 pushes toward ‘full whole-building LCA,’ not GWP-only

Many carbon workflows in early design, and some sector-specific datasets — still default to GWP-only. BREEAM Mat 01 is stricter: it is a whole-building LCA framework, not only an embodied carbon disclosure.

This matters for three reasons:

1. Data availability varies by product category. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) and refrigerants are frequently constrained to GWP-only datasets.
   
   
2. BREEAM scoring relies on consistent methodology. Partial indicator coverage can reduce the defensibility of results, even if GWP totals appear reasonable.
   
   
3. Audit questions often focus on completeness and boundary logic, not just the headline kgCO₂e.
   
   

How to structure a BREEAM v7 LCA model so it stays auditable

BREEAM v7 rewards models that can answer a reviewer’s questions quickly:

• What’s in scope?
  
• Which modules are reported?
  
• Which datasets were used — and are they compatible?
  
• How were transport, waste, maintenance, and end-of-life treated?
  
• Where do the results come from?
  

1) Building elements and classification granularity

BREEAM expects classification and consistent element mapping, and the transcript notes that classification is “mandatory” for the assessment.

In practice, classification does two jobs:

• It allows reviewers to check whether all major elements are included (foundations, frame, envelope, internal walls, finishes, services, etc.)
  
• It supports meaningful disaggregation — so you can identify “carbon hotspots” and prove you did not hide missing scope in a catch-all bucket
  

2) Transport (A4) and site impacts (A5)

Transport and construction site impacts remain common sources of modeling variability. 

• Transport distances that can be set per material
  
• Construction site scenarios
  
• Upcoming scenario updates “based on square meters” for A5/C1
  

The technical point: if you allow default assumptions to drift across options or stages, you may create a misleading improvement narrative. For BREEAM v7 submissions across concept, technical, and post-construction stages, reviewers often care less about any single assumption than they care about consistency across stages.

3) Waste, reuse, repair, and maintenance

Inputs such as:

• Wastage factors
  
• Marking materials as reused
  
• Repair rates
  
• Annual maintenance (with a caution that it can be tricky depending on project stage)
  

These inputs sit at the boundary between “LCA methodology” and “design process reality.” A robust BREEAM v7 workflow treats them as:

• Explicit assumptions documented at each stage
  
• Updated when design information improves
  
• Traceable in reporting outputs
  

If you do not manage this deliberately, B2-type discussions (maintenance/repair) can become a time sink late in the project — with limited credit benefit if the scheme does not reward that scope in the way your team expects.

Data validation under BREEAM v7: catching incompatibilities early

A large share of BREEAM LCA pain is not calculation — it is late-stage rework triggered by data quality or compatibility issues.

From a practitioner standpoint, this type of validation reduces:

• Accidental mixing of EN 15804+A1 and EN 15804+A2 data
  
• Inclusion of datasets that do not meet “full LCA” indicator coverage
  
• Silent failures where results look complete but lack required indicators
  
  

BREEAM v7 Mat 01 and Mat 02: what this implies about credit delivery

BREEAM version 7 includes multiple materials-related credits and reporting outputs. The affects “MAT 02” and how products can be flagged for EPD-related documentation.

Mat 02 and product specificity

“You can mark them for the MO2 credit, if it is a single manufacturer and of course if it is actually covered by an EPD.” If there are products which are covered by EPDs, it automatically includes the download link, so we can also use that for our documentation.” - Steven Zijlstra, Product Marketing Manager at One Click LCA

For BREEAM projects, documentation friction is often the hidden cost — chasing EPD PDFs, verifying versions, and proving traceability. A workflow that automatically attaches references to the reported evidence reduces that burden.

Mat 01 and reporting discipline

BRE’s guidance emphasizes Mat 01 methodology, minimum requirements, and scope — and also notes that criteria have been revised to align more closely across BREEAM schemes and existing LCA methodologies.

Practical consequences

• Output must match the required submission format — “audit-ready” is no longer a marketing phrase, it is the difference between submission acceptance and repeated rejection cycles.
  
  
• “Fixing it in Excel” becomes less viable — correct data, correctly structured, is required earlier.
  
  
• Assessor relationship matters — assessors may have access to portal guidance and training that project teams do not.
  
  

Common technical pitfalls in BREEAM version 7 LCA submissions — and how to avoid them

Pitfall 1: treating EN 15804+A1 and EN 15804+A2 data as interchangeable “EPD versions”

Teams often assume “it’s the same product, so it’s the same dataset.” It is not. Teams must treat A1 and A2 as method variants.

“Some EPDs nowadays will have sets for both… In the plus A1 tool, you will find the plus A1 resource… and in the plus A2 tool, you will find the plus A2 version. So you don’t have to worry about accidentally using the wrong version.” - Steven Zijlstra, Product Marketing Manager at One Click LCA

Pitfall 2: relying on GWP-only datasets for services or refrigerants

BREEAM requires broader indicator coverage — meaning GWP-only datasets can create gaps.

Takeaway: where datasets are incomplete, treat the limitation as a documented assumption and ensure it does not silently break required indicators.

Pitfall 3: inconsistent assumptions across project stages

BREEAM v7 pushes multi-stage assessments. If transport distances, waste factors, and replacement assumptions change without a documented rationale, your “improvement story” can collapse under review.

A technically sound BREEAM v7 workflow for busy project teams

Below is a practical, technically oriented workflow that aligns with the transcript’s guidance and common Mat 01 review expectations.

Step 1: lock your method choice per option (A1 or A2)

• Decide whether the baseline is A1 or A2
  
• If both are needed, set up two design options immediately and isolate them
  

Step 2: define boundaries early — and do not let them drift

• Confirm which modules you will report and how you will treat site impacts, waste, and end-of-life
  
• Use consistent assumptions at concept stage and refine only when design information improves
  

Step 3: enforce “full LCA” data rules for BREEAM scope

• Do not allow GWP-only datasets to populate elements that must be full-indicator
  
• Where gaps exist (common in services), document them and validate acceptability with the assessor early
  

Step 4: model traceability as you go

• Ensure product classification and element mapping are consistent
  
• Capture EPD links and dataset identifiers early to reduce late documentation sprints
  

Step 5: produce submission-format outputs early, not at the end

• Generate the portal-ready reports well before deadlines
  
• Use early exports to uncover missing scope, incompatible datasets, and classification problems
  
  

BREEAM version 7 fundamentally changes how life cycle assessment is delivered in practice — shifting LCA from a flexible, consultant-led exercise to a tightly defined, auditable workflow grounded in consistent system boundaries and EN 15804–aligned data. This guide exists to explain how to structure compliant BREEAM v7 LCAs in real projects, with detailed guidance on managing the EN 15804+A1 to A2 transition, avoiding mixed datasets, meeting full LCA indicator requirements, and producing submission-ready results for the BREEAM portal.

Frequently asked questions about BREEAM version 7

What is the biggest change in BREEAM version 7 for LCA practitioners?

The most significant change is that BREEAM version 7 treats LCA as a fully auditable, method-driven process, not a flexible calculation exercise. Practitioners must now demonstrate consistent system boundaries, use standards-aligned datasets (increasingly EN 15804+A2), and produce results in a mandated format suitable for direct upload to the BREEAM portal. Informal assumptions, mixed datasets, or post-hoc spreadsheet adjustments are far less acceptable than in earlier versions.

Can EN 15804+A1 and EN 15804+A2 data be used in the same BREEAM v7 assessment?

No. EN 15804+A1 and EN 15804+A2 datasets must not be mixed within a single calculation. If your project relies on both legacy A1 data (for example, national generic databases) and newer A2 EPDs, you should run separate design options or parallel assessments, each using only one data standard. Mixing A1 and A2 data compromises methodological consistency and can invalidate results during review.

Is EN 15804+A2 mandatory for BREEAM version 7?

BREEAM v7 strongly aligns with EN 15804+A2, and all new EPDs published since July 2022 are required to follow this standard. However, BREEAM still allows EN 15804+A1 data where A2 data is not yet available. The key requirement is not to avoid A1 entirely, but to use it consistently and transparently, without combining it with A2 data in the same calculation path.

Is it acceptable to report only global warming potential (GWP) for BREEAM v7?

No. BREEAM Mat 01 requires a full life-cycle assessment, not a GWP-only calculation. While GWP is a central indicator, datasets that report only GWP do not meet the full LCA requirements for BREEAM v7. This is particularly relevant for building services and refrigerants, where GWP-only datasets are common. If full-indicator data is unavailable, limitations must be clearly understood and addressed early with the assessor.

How does BREEAM version 7 treat building services and MEP systems?

Building services and MEP systems remain within scope for BREEAM v7 LCA, but data availability can be uneven. Many service-related datasets provide limited indicators, which can create challenges for full LCA compliance. Where complete datasets exist, they should be used. Where they do not, teams should document assumptions carefully and confirm acceptability with the assessor early in the project to avoid late-stage issues.

What are the expectations for transport and construction stage impacts?

Transport (Module A4) and construction site impacts (Module A5) must be modeled explicitly and consistently. BREEAM v7 places greater emphasis on transparency of assumptions, such as transport distances, site energy use, and waste handling. While default scenarios may be used at early stages, they should be applied consistently across design options and refined as project information improves.

How do Mat 01 and Mat 02 differ in BREEAM version 7?

Mat 01 focuses on the overall life-cycle impact of the building, requiring a whole-building LCA with defined boundaries and consistent methodology. Mat 02 focuses on material specification and product-level performance, particularly the use of manufacturer-specific products supported by verified EPDs. For Mat 02, product specificity, EPD coverage, and traceable documentation are critical to securing credits.

Do I still need Excel calculators for BREEAM LCA reporting?

No. Legacy Excel calculators are no longer central to BREEAM v7. Results are now submitted through the BREEAM portal, using standardized reporting formats. This means your LCA outputs must already be structured correctly before submission — there is limited scope to “fix” results manually at the end of the process.

At which project stages is LCA required under BREEAM version 7?

BREEAM v7 expects LCA to be carried out at multiple project stages, typically including concept design, technical design, and post-construction. Early-stage assessments are no longer optional or purely indicative, they inform compliance strategy and are expected to evolve as the design develops, using consistent assumptions and improving data quality over time.

What are the most common reasons BREEAM v7 LCA submissions fail or require rework?

The most common issues include mixing EN 15804+A1 and A2 data, relying on GWP-only datasets, inconsistent assumptions between project stages, missing or unclear system boundaries, and reporting outputs that do not match the BREEAM portal requirements. Addressing these risks early is far more efficient than attempting to resolve them during assessor review.

How can teams reduce rework and audit risk under BREEAM version 7?

Rework is reduced by locking methodology decisions early, separating A1 and A2 calculations, enforcing data compatibility checks, documenting assumptions as part of the model, and generating portal-ready reports well before submission deadlines. A disciplined workflow that treats LCA as a core design process — rather than a late-stage compliance task — is now essential for efficient BREEAM v7 delivery.

How One Click LCA can help

One Click LCA supports BREEAM version 7 delivery by reducing the practical risks that now sit at the center of compliance — inconsistent datasets, unclear boundaries, and late-stage reporting errors. It enables you to run clearly separated EN 15804+A1 and A2 assessments, apply built-in data validation to prevent incompatible inputs, and model full LCA impacts across all required life-cycle stages without manual interpretation. Structured material classification, embedded EPD traceability, and automatically formatted BREEAM v7 result outputs help you move from concept to post-construction assessment with less rework and fewer audit questions — allowing project teams, consultants, and assessors to focus on design decisions and carbon reduction, rather than fixing compliance issues at submission stage.