Trevor Vick

A growing number of U.S. cities and states now require commercial buildings to report how much energy they use and, increasingly, what facility managers and owners plan to do with this information. For the commercial cleaning and maintenance industry, that shift from reporting to action is no longer background noise. Cleaning and maintenance contractors work inside these buildings every day, managing chemical use, water consumption, equipment energy draw, and waste streams that directly affect a building’s environmental footprint. Since Washington, D.C. and Austin, Texas became the first U.S. cities to mandate energy disclosure in 2008, at least 54 additional cities, counties, and states have adopted similar ordinances, and more than 40 jurisdictions now operate active benchmarking or building performance programs. The penalties are no longer symbolic. Boston’s emissions ordinance, for example, can fine noncompliant nonresidential buildings up to US$1,000 per day for missing performance standards. From disclosure to performance Many of the earliest building ordinances only required owners to publish basic energy data—a simple disclosure exercise with limited downstream consequence for service providers. That is changing. A growing share of jurisdictions now tie specific reduction targets and financial penalties to a building’s actual performance over time. Colorado’s statewide building performance program requires covered commercial buildings of 50,000 square feet or larger to cut greenhouse gas emissions 7% by 2026 and 20% by 2030 against a 2021 baseline. For cleaning and maintenance firms, these requirements create new exposure. When a building misses its emissions target, owner inquiries quickly turn to the parties who control day-to-day operational inputs: water use, chemical selection, equipment runtimes, and waste handling. Service providers who cannot produce detailed records of what products and equipment they used, when they used it, and how these uses compare to prior periods, are increasingly finding themselves unable to support their clients’ compliance documentation—or to defend their own role in the outcome. Lack of persistent records The deeper problem is not a shortage of data—it is a shortage of continuous, verifiable data. Most cleaning and maintenance contractors generate significant operational information: product usage logs, equipment inspection reports, water meter readings tied to cleaning schedules, waste manifests, and periodic service summaries. What most lack, however, is a reliable mechanism for maintaining that information in a form that survives account transitions, subcontractor changes, or the ordinary passage of time. This gap matters because cleaning and maintenance activity touches nearly every system that regulators and auditors now scrutinize. HVAC maintenance and filter programs affect the roughly 61% of energy use attributable to heating and cooling in a typical commercial building. Water efficiency programs, green cleaning chemical compliance, equipment electrification, and waste diversion each require their own baseline to demonstrate improvement over time. Without a documented starting point tied to a specific building and service period, contractors cannot show that conditions improved, auditors cannot confirm that targets are being met, and owners pursuing rebates or tax incentives often discover that the documentation needed to support a claim no longer exists. Financial-grade data Additional pressure is building from another direction. Chief financial officers and institutional lenders are increasingly expecting facilities and sustainability teams to produce energy and operational data with the rigor historically applied to financial statements. Investors are now pushing companies to provide audited environmental, social and governance (ESG) data that matches the rigor of financial reporting. Frameworks such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive already require limited assurance on sustainability data today, with that standard rising to the level applied to financial audits by 2028. A cleaning or maintenance log assembled after the fact from vendor invoices and field notes rarely survives that level of scrutiny. For cleaning and maintenance companies pursuing green building certifications, sustainability-linked contracts, or preferred vendor status with institutional property owners, that gap is becoming a competitive liability. Capital access and contract risk Pressure is also emerging from capital markets. Lenders, insurers, and institutional investors increasingly rely on verified building performance and operational data when evaluating risk, underwriting decisions, and determining incentive eligibility. Buildings with fragmented or unverifiable records—including records of cleaning and maintenance activity that affects indoor air quality, water use, and waste streams—may face higher financing costs, increased diligence requirements, or difficulty demonstrating compliance with sustainability commitments. For service contractors whose business depends on long-term relationships with institutional building owners, the quality of operational records is becoming a contract consideration, not simply an administrative one. The multi-structure identification problem A related problem compounds matters at the building level itself. Many commercial parcels contain multiple distinct structures—sometimes dozens—under a single street address. Permits, inspections, compliance filings, and service logs are typically associated with that address rather than the individual structure they actually describe. Cleaning and maintenance contractors operating across a campus, a mixed-use development, or a portfolio of properties under shared management face unique challenges. Service documentation becomes difficult to trace, scope disputes arise at renewal, and compliance reporting tied to a specific structure can become ambiguous or unusable over time. Lifecycle records as a service differentiator As buildings become increasingly regulated, digitized, and performance-driven, the cleaning and maintenance industry may need to rethink how it manages historical records altogether. Service activity, chemical and water usage, equipment maintenance, inspection histories, and compliance documentation are all becoming long-term operational assets—not just internal paperwork. Yet most service providers still lack a persistent mechanism for maintaining continuity of records throughout the life of a client relationship, let alone across account transitions or building ownership changes. Cleaning businesses that can demonstrate a verifiable service history tied to a specific structure over time will have an advantage when competing for institutional accounts, supporting green building programs, and avoiding compliance disputes. That capability is not a product feature; it is a recordkeeping discipline built deliberately, starting well before any audit or compliance deadline arrives. None of the challenges associated with data-keeping argue against green cleaning programs, equipment electrification, or water efficiency initiatives. They do, however, argue for treating the documented history of cleaning and maintenance activity as essential operational infrastructure—not paperwork assembled after the

Follow CMM

Trevor Vick

CEO, UMIP Inc.

Articles by Trevor Vick

Keeping Up With Energy Reporting Requirements

Business and Management

View the Latest CMM Magazine Edition