Search results

The purpose of this paper is identification of a methodology to determine CO₂ emissions through facility services on an approximate and sufficiently accurate basis. This methodology is to be used by German practitioners for request for proposals (RFPs) and offers of facility services.

In accordance with ISO 14067, a matrix of CO₂-relevant modules for the representation of CO₂ emissions from facility services is developed. Key figures for energy consumption, transport and equipment manufacture and use are used in a case study.

For a transparent CO₂ assessment of facility services, the following modules are required: work clothing, devices, vehicles (service personnel), supplies, transportation of personnel and overhead (vehicles and office space). In the case study, facility services account for about 30 per cent of the CO₂ emissions originating from the use of the building.

The methodology developed is also applicable to other services. Prior to that, however, the investigation of additional facility services (catering or security) and an extension to other types of facilities is required (office building, hospital, etc.).

The developed methodology allows transparent competition for low-carbon services concepts, for example, in RFP procedures for facility services.

CO₂-optimised facility services increase the demand for low-emission operating equipment and resources. They therefore have an indirect influence on the development of a low-carbon economy.

To date, there has not been a methodology that supports a transparent and practical summary of the service-related CO₂ emissions associated with the resources used in facility services.

The purpose of this paper is to present the development of an action and assessment framework to make sustainability in German facility management (FM) transparent, measurable and assessable.

The underlying research project’s approach to develop the new action and assessment framework consisted of a three-step methodology: to define and substantiate sustainability in FM, to operationalise and quantify sustainability in FM and to validate the developed system draft through an initial pilot study.

The main result of the presented research project is a set of 24 criteria, organised into the separate areas of environmental, economic and sociocultural quality, as well as the quality of FM organisation and the sustainability of building/contract-specific facility services. The assessment methodology reflects the strategic approach of a plan–do–check–act loop to create a transparent and objective appraisal and a practical action framework.

The outcome of the study is initially only a measurement and assessment framework. To transform the finalised system draft and assessment tool into a certification system, further steps of development are necessary.

The newly developed action and assessment framework is able to cure the blind spot that the relevant players (building owners, users and service providers) suffer from while developing, purchasing and comparing concepts for sustainable FM. The results and practical experiences of its initial pilot study show that this new framework can make the building operation phase and its processes transparent, measurable and assessable.

The guideline is also able to establish a crucial basis for the development of corporate sustainability strategies and sustainability reporting. This is an important step in closing the existing gap in numerous corporate social responsibility reports.

Due to its assessment methodology and the calibration of its criteria, this new action and assessment framework both diversifies and completes the range of existing sustainability certification systems.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the result of an optimisation via life cycle costs (LCC) depends on the assumptions made throughout the process of calculating LCC.

A framework is used to structure the assumptions made in the process of calculating LCC. These include the following three pairs: technical versus economic life‐span, static versus dynamic calculation method or costs only versus income minus costs. In a broader sense, these LCC are referred to as the life cycle economy (LCE). Two case studies form the basis for the LCC calculations. Using different assumptions, the LCC of virtual design variations of these buildings are compared to each other.

The rankings drawn from the calculations differ according to the chosen calculation method, i.e. the chosen variation for the optimisation of a building is not consistent.

This is essentially an exploratory study and the prognosis of future cash flow in relation to certain design variations requires further research.

The credibility of life cycle costing should improve with a greater transparency of assumptions in the context of the outlined framework.

All players in facilities management who support their decisions with LCC will benefit from this quantification of the impact of different calculation methods. The extension of LCC to LCE will help planners, investors and owners of real estate in evaluating building options with respect to quality, image, flexibility or comfort.