BREEAM v7 introduces more explicit expectations for:
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:
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.
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.
“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:
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:
BREEAM v7 rewards models that can answer a reviewer’s questions quickly:
BREEAM expects classification and consistent element mapping, and the transcript notes that classification is “mandatory” for the assessment.
In practice, classification does two jobs:
Transport and construction site impacts remain common sources of modeling variability.
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.
Inputs such as:
These inputs sit at the boundary between “LCA methodology” and “design process reality.” A robust BREEAM v7 workflow treats them as:
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.
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:
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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Below is a practical, technically oriented workflow that aligns with the transcript’s guidance and common Mat 01 review expectations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.