Benchmark fatigue - is the consulting industry doing enough to provide a consistent basis for decision making?

Over the last decade, the building performance industry has developed an increasingly large number of benchmarks and frameworks, designed to help us understand how buildings perform:

CIBSE. REEB. CRREM. NABERS. UKNZCBS. EPCs. DECs

But have we stopped to think about how these tools look from a client’s perspective?

How is a client, responsible for a mixed-use real estate portfolio, expected to understand which benchmark is most appropriate, which dataset is most representative of a particular building, and which target should be used to inform investment decisions?

These are the questions which come to mind following the launch of the new CIBSE Energy Benchmarking Dashboard. The dashboard, according to CIBSE, is intended to ‘assist with the evaluation of operational energy use and provide valuable support in making informed decisions relating to the design and operation of buildings’.

Historically, benchmarking was relatively straightforward – seemingly there was only one question to answer, and that was, ‘How does my building’s energy use compare to similar buildings?’

The questions have since multiplied. Now, for any building, clients need to consider:

• How does it compare with the market?
• How efficiently does it operate?
• Is it aligned with a net zero pathway?
• Does it meet a recognised net zero standard?
• What level of performance should we be targeting in five or ten years’ time?

The problem is, whilst no single benchmark answers all of these questions, they are frequently presented side-by-side, and at times used interchangeably.

Different benchmarks, different questions

An asset manager reviewing reports from multiple consultants may be presented with several different definitions of success, all of which appear valid. One consultant may benchmark against CIBSE. Another may focus on the Real Estate Environmental Benchmark (REEB). A third may assess performance against the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard's (UKNZCBS) operational energy targets. A fourth may present a Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM) pathway analysis.

As aforementioned, all are valid benchmarks, which raises the concern, that whilst we are making building performance assessments more sophisticated, we are simultaneously making it more difficult to compare 'apples to apples’.

This is where I believe the industry still has work to do.

From benchmarking to decision making

So, perhaps the bigger question is really whether benchmarking is still the primary objective. For many clients, the goal is no longer to understand whether a building is better or worse than average. The goal is to understand what actions should be taken next.

• Should capital be invested?
• Should systems be electrified?
• Should controls be optimised?
• Should a building be repositioned within a portfolio?
• Should an asset be retained or disposed of?

These are strategic decisions worth millions of pounds. Mistakes can impact a building’s energy and carbon performance for decades to come.

In this context, benchmarking becomes less about producing a score, and more about providing a consistent basis for decision making. Whilst we have made huge strides as an industry in terms of how we measure performance, ultimately the goal isn’t to benchmark more, it is to decide better. Clients shouldn’t be left asking which benchmark is ‘right’ - we should be helping them to ask better questions, that in turn supports practical decisions.

• What does 'good’ actually look like - for this building, and for the client’s business objectives?

This is where our role, as consultants, becomes critical.