A rating name and a row of stars summarise a complex assessment in a few characters. This page sets out the published bands, the score benchmarks in one specific manual, and the limits of what a rating label can carry.
BREEAM, a registered trade mark of BRE, expresses an assessment outcome through named rating bands and a star representation on the certificate. The scheme's rating scale gives a concise indication of the overall result, but the name alone does not reveal every credit, category result or minimum standard behind it. Proper interpretation requires the applicable standard, version and assessment record.
BRE states that the rating sequence runs from Pass through Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding. The In-Use scheme adds Acceptable below Pass. These names provide an ordered scale, with each higher band representing a stronger result under the applicable method.
The rating is shown as stars on the certificate. The stars are a visual expression of the certified band, not a separate scoring system. They should not be counted as though each star represented a fixed amount of energy saving, carbon reduction or other physical performance. The certificate communicates the assessment outcome defined by the relevant scheme rules.
A rating name is also not a universal grade that can be detached from its context. Different standards address different asset types and stages, and different versions can alter assessment issues, weightings, minimum standards and benchmarks. The title of the standard and its version are therefore essential whenever ratings are compared.
BRE's UK New Construction 2014 non-domestic technical manual, reference SD5076, publishes the following overall score benchmarks for that particular scheme and version. Outstanding begins at 85 per cent or above. Excellent begins at 70 per cent. Very Good begins at 55 per cent. Good begins at 45 per cent. Pass begins at 30 per cent. A result below 30 per cent is Unclassified.
These bands are specific to the UK New Construction 2014 method. They should not be copied into an assessment under another standard or version without confirming that the same benchmarks apply. Other versions and schemes differ, and the presence of the same rating names does not prove that the numerical thresholds or technical expectations are identical.
The published percentages are overall assessment benchmarks, not category targets. A score of 70 per cent, for example, does not mean that every category achieved 70 per cent of its available credits. The overall result is produced after category performance and weightings are combined, and minimum standards are considered separately.
The scale allows a complex assessment to be summarised in a form that clients, investors, designers, contractors and occupiers can recognise. Pass indicates that the result has reached the entry benchmark for a classified rating under the applicable method. Good, Very Good and Excellent mark progressively higher bands. Outstanding represents the highest published band.
The words are comparative labels within the scheme, not plain-language guarantees. Excellent does not mean that no environmental improvement remains possible, and Outstanding does not mean that the building has no adverse impacts. The assessment is bounded by its defined scope, categories, evidence rules and stage. Matters outside that scope may still require separate evaluation.
The rating also does not describe actual operational performance in every circumstance. A design-stage assessment reflects the evidence and commitments relevant to that stage, while later outcomes depend on construction, commissioning, handover, management and use. The precise assessment stage shown on the certificate should therefore form part of any interpretation.
Acceptable appears in the In-Use rating sequence but not in the UK New Construction 2014 benchmarks listed above. This distinction is important because it shows that rating scales are not identical across the scheme's different standards. A term used for an existing asset assessment should not be inserted into a new-construction scale merely because both sit under the same wider framework.
The In-Use scheme is concerned with existing assets and their performance context. Its inclusion of Acceptable provides an additional classified band at the lower end of that particular scale. The benchmark associated with that band must be taken from the applicable In-Use documentation, not inferred from the UK New Construction 2014 figures.
A comparison between an In-Use certificate and a New Construction certificate therefore requires more than reading the rating name. The asset type, assessment scope, version, country basis and stage may differ. The certificates may each be valid within their own method while representing different bodies of evidence.
Under the UK New Construction 2014 benchmarks, a result below 30 per cent is Unclassified. This means that the overall outcome does not reach the published Pass benchmark for that scheme and version. Unclassified is not an additional positive rating below Pass.
The term does not necessarily mean that the project achieved no credits or included no sustainable features. A project may have evidence of performance in some areas but still fail to reach the overall benchmark. It may also be affected by minimum standards, because the scheme determines performance through more than the weighted percentage alone.
An Unclassified outcome should therefore be interpreted precisely. It describes the assessment result against the applicable method. It is not a general verdict on legal compliance, building safety, architectural quality or the intentions of the project team. Those matters sit outside the meaning of the rating label.
BRE explains that overall performance is determined by four elements working together: the rating benchmarks, minimum standards, environmental section weightings, and the assessment issues and credits. The weighted percentage is important, but it is only one part of the decision.
The benchmarks identify the band that a score may reach. The weightings determine how strongly category results contribute to the total. The assessment issues and credits determine what performance is recognised. Minimum standards operate as separate gates for particular rating levels. A project that focuses only on accumulating a headline percentage can therefore misunderstand the route to certification.
This structure supports balance. Higher ratings are intended to represent more than a concentration of easily achieved credits. Minimum standards can require performance in specified areas, while category weightings prevent all subjects from contributing equally regardless of environmental priority. The final rating is the result of the complete method, not a simple points tally.
New Construction Version 7 was launched on 30 September 2025. BRE stated that it introduced new minimum standards defining the expectations attached to Outstanding and Excellent, along with greater attention to whole-life carbon, including embodied carbon from mechanical, electrical and public-health systems, climate resilience and biodiversity.
Those changes reinforce the need to state the version whenever a rating is discussed. An Outstanding project under an earlier method and an Outstanding project under Version 7 carry the same headline word, but the underlying expectations are not necessarily the same. The rating remains valid within its registered method; the mistake would be to assume perfect equivalence across versions.
Version choice is controlled through registration. Registrations for Version 7 opened in September 2025, with a three-month transition during which Version 6 and the 2018 version could still be registered. A registration has a five-year validity. Project programme, design maturity and intended standard therefore affect which technical framework governs the eventual certificate.
Country context can also affect the assessment basis. BRE publishes pre-populated country sheets where most assessments have taken place and provides a weightings form for new countries. The purpose is to reflect different environmental priorities through the applicable weighting structure.
A UAE rating should therefore not be compared mechanically with a European rating solely by matching the band name. The comparison should identify the standard, version, country weighting basis, project type and assessment stage. The same overall band may have been reached through different category contributions.
The UAE has no National Scheme Operator listed by BRE, so projects use the international standards directly. BRE lists licensed national operators only in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. This distinction affects the route by which the relevant standard and country context are established, but it does not change the need for a qualified licensed assessor and BRE Global quality audit.
A certificate should be read as a formal outcome for a defined assessment. The rating name and stars provide the headline, while the standard, version, asset, stage and other certificate details establish what was assessed. Supporting information is needed to understand strengths, limitations and the distribution of performance.
The rating should not be translated into an invented claim about a fixed reduction in cost, carbon, water use or health risk. The scheme does not make every building with the same band physically identical. Location, design, use, systems and category outcomes can differ substantially.
A responsible reference description therefore keeps the scale clear and bounded. For the UK New Construction 2014 manual, the published benchmarks are 85 per cent for Outstanding, 70 per cent for Excellent, 55 per cent for Very Good, 45 per cent for Good and 30 per cent for Pass, with Unclassified below 30 per cent. Acceptable belongs to the In-Use scale. Every one of those labels must be interpreted through the applicable standard and version.
The published sequence runs from Pass through Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding, with the In-Use scheme adding Acceptable below Pass.
The stars are a visual expression of the certified band, not a separate scoring system, and should not be read as a fixed amount of energy or carbon saving.
Assessment issues, weightings, minimum standards and benchmarks can change between versions, so the standard and its version should be stated whenever ratings are compared.
No. The bands quoted here are published in BRE's BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 non-domestic technical manual, reference SD5076, and are specific to that scheme and version. Other schemes and versions differ, and the In-Use scheme adds an Acceptable band below Pass.
Under those 2014 UK New Construction benchmarks, a result below 30 per cent is Unclassified, meaning the overall outcome did not reach the published Pass benchmark for that scheme and version. It is not an additional positive rating below Pass.
Not without further context. The standard, version, country weighting basis, asset type and assessment stage should all be identified, because the same band can be reached through different category contributions under different methods.
This is an independent information resource. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to BRE. BREEAM and BRE are the trademarks of their respective owners and are used here only to identify the scheme described.